resilience systems analysis - oecd. · pdf fileresilience systems analysis ... terms of...

Resilience Systems Analysis

Learning & recommendations report

Hugh MacLeman, OECD Amira Malik Miller, Sida Louise Marty, OECD

1 | P a g e

Contents

Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3

I. Added value to Sweden’s strategy development and planning processes.................................... 5

1.1 Improved analysis and programming ........................................................................................... 5

1.2 At what point in the programme cycle does the RSA add most value? ........................................ 9

II. Post-2015 development commitments ................................................................................... 14

2.1 Enhancing cross-agency co-operation and stakeholder collaboration ....................................... 15

2.2 Leaving no one behind and reaching the ‘furthest behind first’ ................................................. 16

III. Complementarity with other tools and opportunities and barriers for integration .................. 18

3.1 Integration with other tools and approaches ............................................................................. 18

3.2 To what extent can different module or tools within the RSA framework be used flexibly? ...... 19

IV. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 20

4.1 Lessons from the pilot phase to improve the RSA methodology ............................................... 20

4.2 Capacity limitations within Sida .................................................................................................. 22

4.3 The role of management ............................................................................................................ 22

V. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 24

Annex I – Terms of reference for the RSA Learning and Recommendations report ............................ 29

Annex II – How the RSA recommendations have informed strategy proposals and strategies. .......... 34

Annex III – Sweden’s post-2015 commitments .................................................................................... 61

Annex IV – OECD resilience systems analysis guidelines ...................................................................... 68

2 | P a g e

Executive summary

The following Learning and Recommendations report is aimed at reviewing and developing

recommendations based on the collaboration between OECD and Sida and piloting of the Resilience

Systems Analysis (RSA) framework to strengthen strategy development and programming within

seven country programmes between April 2015 and June 2016.

The report focuses on the extent to which the RSA added value in improving analysis, strategy and

programming and in supporting the achievement of Sweden’s post-2015 commitments. The report

also assesses the extent to which the framework complements other tools and approaches within

Sida and the extent to which the methodology itself is ‘fit for purpose’.

The analysis is based upon interviews with twenty-one key headquarters and country programme

staff, as well as a review of country programme reporting to assess the extent to which use of the

RSA has informed decision-making.

The report includes eighteen key recommendations. These recommendations highlight that the RSA

has helped to strengthen risk informed programming, prioritisation and greater coherence between

development and humanitarian action, however, there are remaining challenges in ensuring that

programmes target the most vulnerable – a key component of Sweden’s post-2015 commitments.

Further, the RSA was most successful in helping to inform strategy development processes and, to

an extent operationalisation of strategy but there are challenges in applying the framework to mid-

term reviews. Greater flexibility in the application of the methodology and the inclusion of external

experts was also highlighted as important elements in improving the use of the methodology.

Finally, clearer management direction and cross-agency ownership would be required to further

integrate the methodology within Sida’s systems and approaches.

The report concludes with a ‘menu of options’ for Sida’s management in the further use of the RSA,

drawing on the recommendations above and ranging from capacity support and training for the

further integration of the RSA, through to the adaption of existing tools that draw on some of the

approaches of the RSA. Clear management decision making around the options outlined in this

report will be important and such decisions will need to be supported by the implementation of

appropriate recommendations included within this report.

Finally, Sweden’s efforts to strengthen risk-informed programming and to build greater coherence

between development and humanitarian programming has attracted considerable interest from

other OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members and their partners, including the

UN system. The piloting of the RSA represents an opportunity to share good practice in this area and

play a lead role in driving forward the implementation of post-2015 commitments more broadly to

ensure that, collectively, official development assistance plays an essential role in meeting the needs

of the most vulnerable and in ensuring that we ‘leave no-one behind’ in achieving Agenda 2030.

3 | P a g e

Introduction

The years 2015 and 2016 have been decisive for development cooperation. With the commitments

made on sustainable development (Agenda 2030), financing for development (Addis Ababa Action

Agenda), natural hazards (Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction), climate change (COP21),

conflict and fragility (Stockholm Declaration) and the humanitarian agenda (World Humanitarian

Summit), the international community has agreed on an ambitious and comprehensive roadmap to

deliver change and improve standards of living worldwide.

The post-2015 agreements urge Sweden to do better and to do more in fragile, at risk and crisis

affected countries. But fulfilling those commitments will require going beyond traditional thinking.

To ensure that development reaches the poorest and most vulnerable, there is an urgent need to

adopt new ways of working, invest in context analysis and build a common understanding of risks

and vulnerabilities in fragile countries, design multidimensional programmes, strengthen

cooperation with other donors and create multi-stakeholder partnerships, bridge the gap between

humanitarian and development programming and boost the resilience of people and institutions to

crises.

Resilience is at the core of all the post-2015 international frameworks, including Agenda 2030. There

is strong recognition of the need to build the capacity of people, communities, states and

institutions to reduce, prevent, anticipate, absorb and adjust to different risks and stressors, in order

to ensure sustainable development outcomes for all. Sweden has signed up to all of the frameworks

and agreements and have also made specific and ambitious commitments (see Annex III). As

recognised in many of those commitments made by Sweden, as well as within Sida’s most recent

thinking on resilience1, there is a need to strongly integrate risk-informed contextual analysis and

ensure that it impacts on programmatic decision-making, including a targeting of vulnerability. The

frameworks and commitments also challenges us to think differently about how to engage with poor

and vulnerable people and communities, and to act with greater coherence across humanitarian,

development and political priorities and programming approaches.

To help translate the numerous international agreements into better practices on the ground, the

OECD has developed technical guidance, the Resilience Systems Analysis (RSA) framework. It aims at

building a shared understanding of the main risks (conflict, natural disasters, disease, economic

shocks etc.) in a given context as well as the existing capacities within those societies to cope with

such risks. The analysis is then used to identify gaps in programming and develop a ‘roadmap’ to

boost resilience – namely determine what should be done, by whom and at which level of society.

The RSA’s focus on assets that help people and institutions to protect their well-being and remain

resilient in the face of a wide range of risks and stresses, helps to highlight where people are

vulnerable and to better identify priorities for strengthening the assets of poor and marginalised

groups, thereby improving their overall well-being as well as their resilience to shocks. In addition,

the analysis aims to better identify how programming at national and sub-national levels is

connected to and has an impact for the most vulnerable communities and households (see Annex IV)

Sida and the OECD have been collaborating since April 2015 on piloting the use of the RSA

framework within Sida country programmes to determine whether this approach could add value in

1 Sidas svar till regleringsbrevsuppdraget om resiliens, May 2016

4 | P a g e

Sida’s strategy development and programming approaches. Specifically, the framework has been

used with the objectives of:

Integrating and mainstreaming resilience to a broad range of shocks and stresses within

Sida’s work.

Strengthening coherence between development, humanitarian and peace and state

building approaches and outcomes;

Furthering the integration of Sweden’s programme development goals of poverty and

human rights perspectives, as well as the three cross-cutting perspectives of gender

equality, climate and environment, and conflict sensitivity within Sweden’s programmes

and strategies.

To date, the RSA has been piloted in Syria, Syria neighbouring countries (with a focus on Lebanon

and Jordan), Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Kenya and Ethiopia at various points in the programme

cycle2 – with the outcomes from these analyses contributing to recommendations for strategy

development, operationalisation processes and mid-term programme reviews.

The following Learning and Recommendations Report intends to determine if the RSA can be

systematically integrated into Sida’s programming systems. In particular, this report aims to provide

recommendations regarding the following key questions:

1. To what extent does the RSA ‘add value’ to the design of Sweden’s development

cooperation strategies and Sida’s respective programme portfolios?

2. Is the RSA useful in supporting Sweden in translating post 2015 commitments into practical,

concrete actions?

3. What are the opportunities and barriers with regard to the RSA’s coherence and

complementarity with Sida’s existing processes, tools and organisational approaches?

4. To what extent is the methodological framework for the RSA ‘fit for purpose’?

The conclusions and recommendations below are based upon both informant interviews with 21

headquarters and field-based staff to assess the perceived added value of the RSA, its application

within Sida’s systems, processes and organisational context; and ‘desk-based analysis’ drawing upon

the recommendations from the seven RSAs completed during the pilot phase of this work – to

identify the extent to which recommendations developed as a result of RSA reports have informed

the drafting of country strategy plans, mid-term programme reports and country programme

operationalisation plans.

2 The Pilot project is hosted at Sida by its Africa department, however the collaboration between Sida and

OECD began with systems analysis for Syria and its neighbouring countries. As such, this report draws on the experience of all seven systems analysis.

Hugh MacLeman, OECD Amira Malik Miller, Sida Louise Marty, OECD

5 | P a g e

I. Added value to Sweden’s strategy development and planning

processes

There are growing challenges and complexities within the global context within which Sweden

operates – from protracted crises, increased migration flows and the increasing frequency and

intensity of natural hazards, through to rising inequality, fragility and violent conflict. Sweden has set

out to meet these challenges through its Aid Policy Framework (revised and launched in December

2016), which is supported by ‘result strategy’ guidelines that aim to articulate a clear policy vision

and a strategy for translating this vision into concrete actions that achieve measurable outcomes

and impacts.

However, as per the recommendations of the 2013 OECD Development Cooperation Peer Review,

further work needs to be done to ensure that Sweden’s result strategies and supporting systems and

processes allow sufficient time for adequate analysis and include efforts to achieve greater

coherence across development assistance, humanitarian action and whole-of-government

approaches.

Sweden has bilateral development cooperation strategies with fifteen countries across the African

region. Within this portfolio, there are a range of operational contexts – from relatively stable

countries making rapid development gains, through to post-conflict and transitional environments,

as well as conflict affected and fragile states. Similarly, there are a wide variety of risks and

uncertainties affecting these countries – from high vulnerability to a range of natural hazards,

through to complex man-made threats, including economic stresses, conflict and violent extremism;

as well as epidemics and other crisis drivers. Throughout its bilateral programmes, Sweden also has

different sectoral emphases, based on steering by the government, its relative comparative

advantage and the differing country contexts. In addition, many of these contexts include significant

humanitarian and development portfolios. Sweden’s humanitarian, development and political aims

need to be coherent and mutually reinforcing, on the basis of their respective comparative

advantage – while respecting and safeguarding humanitarian principles – to ensure that immediate

needs are met, while also addressing the longer-term drivers of crises and strengthening the

resilience of people and institutions.

The piloting of the RSA at different points in Sweden’s programme cycle aimed to better address

these complexities through Sweden’s strategic development and planning processes and thereby

improve both the analysis underpinning strategy development, programming processes and

subsequent decision-making processes, which includes gaining better understanding of Sweden’s

current and potential comparative advantage in a specific context. The extent to which the RSA has

been useful in this regard is outlined below and is based on both interviews with key headquarters

and programme staff, and a desk-based review to determine whether RSA recommendations have

informed reporting processes and strategy and programming decisions.

1.1 Improved analysis and programming

Key aims of piloting the RSA in Sweden’s country programmes focused on improving risk-informed

analysis and programming; the identification of opportunities to strengthen linkages between result

areas; ensuring that programming is mutually reinforcing at different layers of society, and; to drive

6 | P a g e

greater coherence between Sweden’s humanitarian, development, and political investments and

objectives.

1.1.1 Risk informed context analysis and the prioritisation of vulnerability

The post-2015 international agreements emphasize that more action is needed on tackling risks

before they become crises. Through the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction, Sweden’s

national commitments at the World Humanitarian Summit and the Stockholm Declaration, Sweden

has committed to a “shift from perpetual crisis management towards effective prevention and early

action” by adopting risk-informed programmes that anticipate and reduce risks (Agenda for

Humanity – WHS). The challenge is now to translate those commitments into action. For further

details on Sweden’s post-2015 commitments (see Annex III).

However, tackling risks requires a better understanding of them – whether conflicts, natural

disasters, economic shocks or disease outbreaks, – as well as their underlying drivers, such as

poverty, inequality, poor governance, climate change, demographic shifts, inadequate resource

management or environmental degradation. It also requires acknowledging the complexity and

inter-linkages between different risks, for instance how natural disasters can trigger disease

outbreaks and how conflict can leave people more exposed to climate hazards.

The RSA was designed to rethink programming through a risk-lens. By convening diverse staff

members to undertake a joint analysis of the risk-landscape in a specific context, the RSA workshops

conducted in the seven countries aimed at providing the means to collectively gain a better

understanding of the situation, thus allowing the country team to better account for a diverse set of

inter-connected risks and tailor programmes accordingly.

Findings from the interviews indicated that most of the RSA workshops helped to build a shared

view of the most prominent risks that populations faced as well as how those risks impacted upon

people’s well-being. Sixteen of the twenty-one staff interviewed indicated that they were not used

to focus on contextual risks and appreciated this new way of thinking as it helped to “raise

complexity and linkages” in a “very structured way”. However, it was pointed out by many of the

interviewees that the risk analysis remained challenging, in part because the breadth and depth of

contextual knowledge was limited within the programme teams. As several people highlighted, this

could have been better addressed through the inclusion of externals experts in the RSA workshops

(especially within step 1-3 of the RSA framework – see Annex IV) and, going forward, this is an

option for Sida to explore.

The RSA also aims to strengthen a common understanding of, and focus on, vulnerability in line with

commitments made in the 2030 Agenda and repeated during the World Humanitarian Summit to

“leave no one behind” and focus on the “furthest behind first”. Those commitments require not only

better identification and prioritization of the most vulnerable groups but also engaging more at the

subnational and community levels to ensure development assistance has an adequate impact on the

poorest and most vulnerable communities and households.

Findings from the interviews show the RSA was “quite successful” in identifying vulnerable groups

and regions and, as one Sida staff member highlighted: “the method includes the most vulnerable

people in the development analysis which otherwise were only included in the humanitarian analysis

and considered as humanitarian concerns.” However, with the exception of the RSAs conducted for

7 | P a g e

Syria and the Syria regional strategy and, to some extent, Ethiopia, there was limited evidence that

this aspect of the analysis was used to inform programming.

Many of the interviewees indicated that this could be addressed with clearer management follow-up

and support to ensure that RSA recommendations are adequately reflected in subsequent reporting

and programme decision-making processes. In addition, programme teams could make better use of

the ‘vertical analysis’ linking national, sub-national, community and household programming; as well

as the use of tools, such as the geographical mapping of vulnerability to better understand and

target poor and vulnerable people, communities and regions.

1.1.2 Stronger linkages between ‘layers’ and within and between results areas

One of the RSA’s main objectives is to identify and highlight complementarity between result areas

and to identify possible synergies, thereby assisting in decision making processes and the

prioritisation and, where necessary, the rationalisation of programme portfolios. The analysis also

aims to build a shared understanding of the linkages and dependencies between programmes at

different layers of society – i.e. at national, regional, community and household layers. Furthermore,

when applying this to Sweden’s strategy processes, the cross-cutting perspectives of gender

equality, conflict sensitivity and environment and climate mainstreaming were given due attention;

as a way to create an opportunity for programme teams to think strategically about how to

mainstream these perspectives. Also, more importantly, they were also used to further strengthen

synergies between result areas and societal layers. The results of the analysis can then be used to

design more integrated programming that better capitalises on synergies within and between results

areas and addresses programming gaps at different layers of society that may limit the effectiveness

and achievement of programme outcomes. The analysis also aims to highlight where humanitarian,

development and political approaches may have a respective comparative advantage at what layer,

and how this could contribute to strengthening the well-being of vulnerable people and of the

‘system’ as a whole.

The horizontal (across result areas) and vertical (between layers) aspects of the RSA was seen by

most interviewees as one of the key strengths of the analysis. Feedback from interviewees included

comments that it was ‘’extremely useful’’, that it was ‘’one of the best parts of the analysis and very

important to do because the team had not looked at programming in that way before’’, and ‘’this

was one of the very positive aspects; Sida doesn’t do this in other processes.’’ With regard to specific

country programmes, one interviewee reflected that in the case of Somalia, ‘’it was striking, a very

good reflection for the team. It provided evidence that the balance between peace building and

statebuilding is focused too much at the national level and the methodology also allowed for an

integrated conflict perspective, which was very helpful.’’ That said, interviewees also recognised

some constraints. In particular, that the analysis was limited both by time pressures and by the level

of contextual knowledge of workshop participants – possibly reinforcing the reflections under

section 1.1.1 that the analysis might have been strengthened with the inclusion of more external

experts in the workshop.

Several participants also expressed regrets that the RSA findings were not adequately incorporated

in subsequent operational plans and did not make their way into the reports submitted to the MFA.

However, it is worth highlighting that this may be an issue with perception, in that the desk review

of subsequent reporting processes it was clear that the need to strengthen both horizontal and

8 | P a g e

vertical linkages was reflected to a greater or lesser extent. For example, the Operationalization Plan

for Ethiopia highlights that the RSA strengthened the case for better linkages between ‘sustainable

food security with a focus on resilient agriculture’ a ‘better environment and limited climate impact’

and the strengthening of ‘democratic accountability and transparency’ on land tenure. Similarly, the

Operationalization Plan for the Swedish cooperation strategy with Kenya indicates that RSA results

were widely incorporated, including the need to better link with Sweden’s regional and global

priorities and programmes and to ensure that Kenya’s devolution process be supported through

national, county and community level programming as a means of achieving better and equal access

to services. Further examples from strategy reports and operationalisation plans can be found in

Annex II of this report. Yet more evidence of how country teams gradually are moving forward with

the implementation of the RSA recommendations can be seen in the operational planning for 2017-

2019. Programme teams in Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia have also been tasked with developing

specific resilience work plans to be submitted during the first quarter of 2017 and cover 2017-2019,

which should build on the RSA reports recommendations.

1.1.3 Greater coherence between humanitarian, development and political objectives

There is an urgent need for better coherence between humanitarian and development assistance to

ensure comprehensive response to crises that address immediate needs and the underlying causes

of crises that disproportionately impact upon vulnerable groups. The Addis Ababa Action Agenda on

financing for development highlights that ‘partnerships are effective instruments for mobilizing

human and financial resources, expertise, technology and knowledge’ and the Stockholm

Declaration intends to ‘provide smarter, more effective, and more targeted development support in

fragile and conflict affected situations’ by ‘actively sharing data between humanitarian and

development organisations’. In addition, Sweden committed to ‘actively exploring ways to transcend

the humanitarian-development divide, by supporting information sharing, common needs analysis

and the achievement of collective outcomes over multiple years’ at the World Humanitarian

Summit.

A common understanding of the context, namely the most prominent risks, their root causes and

the existing capacities and gaps within a society to cope with crises is a key aspect to bridging the

gap between humanitarian and development programming. By convening multiple stakeholders,

including development and humanitarian staff members, the RSA aims to facilitate dialogue

between different actors and thereby promote joint or shared analysis, leading to more

complementary and coherent prioritisation, planning and programming.

Eighteen of the twenty-one interviewees recognised that the RSA was helpful to a greater or lesser

extent in highlighting how the strengthening of linkages between humanitarian and development

programmes could better contribute to the achievement of Sweden’s objectives. For example, one

interviewee stated that “the RSA is useful because it brings us together to sit down and adopt a

common understanding of the context”, while another interviewee stated that “we have moved to a

new level and opened up opportunities for collaboration – really positive.” Furthermore, several

participants pointed out that the focus on resilience can be a useful “entry point” to better connect

humanitarian, development and peace and statebuilding initiatives and approaches. In addition,

detailed feedback on the RSA from the HUMASIA team stated that “the RSA helps to make synergies

between humanitarian and development assistance by helping to develop a common analysis of risk

and vulnerability. Usually there are two analyses, the yearly Humanitarian Country Analysis (HCA)

9 | P a g e

and a development analysis conducted before a new development strategy or a mid-term review. The

RSA brought humanitarian colleagues into this process for the first time and drew on their knowledge

of risks and vulnerabilities, as well as their tools and programs into the process early on.”

Despite this, most interviewees highlighted that the analysis was less successful in integrating peace

and statebuilding and political objectives. In part, this may be due to the fact that there was not

strong participation from the MFA in RSA workshops, with one interviewee pointing out that stating

“it was lacking participation from the MFA – it needs that participation to link development and

political dialogue.’’ There was also a sense that there is still a lack of capacity to implement more

coherent approaches. As one participant pointed out “we don’t even know where to start. We are

not prepared for this.” As a result, the need to strengthen coherence between humanitarian,

development and peace and statebuilding approaches appears strongly in some reports – such as

the strategy proposal for Syria regional and the Operationalization Plan for Kenya - while it was

forgotten in others, such as the Operationalization Plan for Ethiopia (although this is now being

addressed in the operational plan for 2017, as well as in the specific resilience work plan for

Ethiopia). As a result, interviewees stressed the need for continuous engagement throughout the

RSA process and the need for an increased commitment for joint analysis and planning from both

the development and humanitarian teams. However, interviewees highlighted the RSA could not do

everything, as strengthening humanitarian and development participation in joint analysis also

“comes down to management” and clear direction is needed about the need for participation of

both development and humanitarian colleagues in the workshops and throughout the process. That

steering can now be found in the guidelines for Sida’s operational planning for 2017–2019, however

further resources in terms of staff time and capacity building will need to be given for it to be

implemented in a systematic manner.

Finally, a number of interviewees suggested that greater involvement of Stockholm-based

humanitarian, development, and political affairs staff, including from the MFA would be useful, as

they could potentially contribute additional contextual and sectoral expertise, as well as additional

knowledge of Swedish funding and political priorities and reflections on Sweden’s overall

comparative advantage.

1.2 At what point in the programme cycle does the RSA add most value?

The RSA framework was piloted at different points in Sweden’s programme cycle: to feed into

strategy development processes in Syria and Syria regional analyses; to inform operationalisation

plans in Kenya and Ethiopia; and to contribute to mid-term strategy review processes in Somalia,

Sudan and South Sudan. The section below, again drawing on interviews and a desk-based review of

subsequent reporting aims to identify at what point in the programme cycle the RSA has the

potential to contribute greatest added value.

1.2.1 Strategy development

Amongst interviewees, there was considerable support for using the RSA throughout the

programme cycle, however there was a strong consensus that the most opportune time to conduct

an RSA is when a programme team is tasked to develop a strategy proposal, or possibly even before

that, when there is the possibility to influence the assignment to develop a strategy proposal given

to Sida by the MFA. As one interviewee put it; “Apply at an earlier stage when there's more space to

10 | P a g e

‘create something new’”, while another stated that “Programme teams are more open minded and

(have) more space to think outside the box”, implying that there is stronger willingness among team

members to rethink and re-evaluate current programme portfolios and priorities when a new

strategy proposal is to be developed. In addition, some interviewees thought that the RSA should be

adjusted to more clearly incorporate a further step, which develops the theory of change.

This perception is also largely consistent with analysis on how Sida’s programme teams and

management have taken the findings and recommendations from the systems analysis forward in

strategy proposals, operationalisation plans, and review reports. In the case of Syria and the

neighbouring countries, which is the only example of the RSA being used to inform strategy

development, the systems analyses enabled and formed the basis for formulating the overarching

theory of change centred on the concept of resilience. Furthermore, it contributed to ensuring

strong linkages within and between result areas, and thinking around connections between societal

layers. Lastly, using the RSA enabled the programme team to develop a conceptual framework on

how development aid could be complementary to humanitarian assistance, in a very complex and

challenging operational context. The resulting Syria strategy has subsequently been recognised as

best-practice by a range of actors including UN agencies and other OECD DAC members.

1.2.2 Operationalisation

In Kenya and Ethiopia, the RSA was used to inform the process for operationalising new

development cooperation strategies. It is important to note, however, that the two programmes had

different starting points. Kenya had a large programme portfolio which needed to be prioritised and

rationalised to account for changes in the strategic directions; whereas the Ethiopia programme

team had been anticipating a new strategy direction for some time, including a doubling of the

annual allocation. In this context, the Ethiopia team had already made significant progress in

formulating theories of change for each of the result areas during the strategy proposal

development phase, which was not the case for Kenya.

Reviews of the operational plans show that Ethiopia drew upon the RSA report recommendations in

relation to the development of inter-linkages within and between result areas, as well as the need to

engage more at the regional and community levels, including reaching those most vulnerable,

however, these could all also have been pushed further. With regard to strengthening coherence

between humanitarian assistance and development interventions, this is highlighted within the plan,

however it needs to be taken further and should be revisited during the annual operational planning

process for 2017.

The Kenya operational plan incorporated RSA report recommendations aimed at strengthening

dialogue with the Government of Kenya and other development actors, strengthening linkages

between programmes at the national, county and community levels, as well as strengthening the

focus on vulnerability and ‘leaving no one behind’ throughout the programme portfolio. Critically,

however, several recommendations were not incorporated, including the need to better understand

the role of social capital in people’s ability to manage a wide range of risks and shocks; and the need

to ensure that the geographical coverage of the programme deliberately targets geographical areas

of highest vulnerability (see Annex II for further details).

In both cases the RSA had an observable impact on decision making processes in developing

operational plans. The fact that the Ethiopian team incorporated more of the recommendations may

11 | P a g e

however indicate that, where there are sensitivities around the consolidation of programme

portfolios, as was the case in Kenya, acceptance of the RSA methodology may be more limited. In

both cases, while programme staff recognised the added value of the RSA, interviewees from the

programme teams indicated that it would have been easier to incorporate the methodology during

the operationalisation process if it had also been used at an earlier stage to frame the programme

strategy, as well as to formulate an overarching theory of change.

1.2.3 Mid-term review

For Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan the RSA was used to inform the mid-term reviews of strategy

implementation. An overall observation is clearly that it is much more difficult to introduce a new

framework half way through a strategy cycle, when part of the purpose is to review the success of

the strategy implementation. Programme officers and managers have vested interests in the existing

portfolio, or as one key informant put it, it is “challenging (to use the RSA) for the MTR – partly

because people don't want to hear.” However, though mid-term reviews indeed proved to be

challenging, analysis of the strategy reports submitted to the MFA, to which the RSA

recommendation reports contributed, showed that many of the recommendations had in fact been

taken forward by the programme teams.

In the case of Somalia, many of the key recommendations were visible in the final strategy report,

however, a majority of them had not been pushed far enough. As an example, the importance of

strengthening overall strategic coherence across the programme portfolio was partly embraced, in

that there was a clear commitment to build stronger linkages between result areas, however, little

was mentioned in regards to ensuring that programmes are mutually reinforcing at different layers

of society. Similarly, the opportunity to strengthen gender equality, human rights, and conflict

sensitivity was picked up in the strategy report, whereas mainstreaming issues related to

environment and climate were not.

The Sudan and South Sudan RSA workshops were shorter and held in Stockholm, as both

programmes are managed from HQ, with one deployed staff member present in Khartoum and Juba

respectively. In the case of Sudan, the RSA workshop highlighted the lack of contextual knowledge

within Sida, which came through as a key challenge – not only for the workshop but also in relation

to effective and responsible management of Sweden’s aid investments. All recommendations were

taken into account and largely followed, including embracing the idea of investing further in joint

humanitarian and development analysis. Similarly, in South Sudan, the key recommendations from

the RSA were included in the strategy report, with the exception of the recommendation to

strengthen the focus on vulnerability. That said, further work needs to be done on ensuring that the

programme strengthens linkages between different layers in society, especially in regards to

targeting sub-national and community level.

Despite evidence that RSA recommendations did in fact help to inform mid-term strategy reporting,

in all three cases, the use of the RSA to inform mid-term review processes was challenging. In the

case of Sudan and South Sudan, there was limited contextual knowledge of the programmes, partly

because the RSA workshops were conducted in Stockholm. This limited the ability of participants to

adequately identify or assess risks and the assets that people and institutions use to manage risk and

maintain their well-being. In the case of Somalia, many of the participants were critical of the

methodology itself, in part because it used an analytical lens that was not used to inform the

12 | P a g e

strategy development process but also because they felt that it didn’t significantly add to the

programme team’s existing analysis and that there was insufficient ownership of the process within

the team.

1.2.4 Reflections across the programme cycle

In summary, there was a strong consensus amongst interviewees that the RSA is most useful for

strategy development. However, a majority of interviewees did also reflect that the RSA had added

value during the operationalisation process and even, to some extent, during review processes –

while noting that it would have been more useful had the RSA already been used in the strategy

development process in the first place.

Unfortunately the pilot phase did not permit for the RSA to be used more than once in a particular

country context, which means that this assumption has been difficult to verify. However, based on

the reflections of those interviewed a strong perception is that there would be a significant added

value to use the RSA framework at the beginning of a strategy process in full (to influence the

assignment given by the MFA to Sida, or when the strategy proposal is developed) including

formulating the underlying theory of change, and then revisited during the operationalisation phase

to deepen the analysis and strengthen the individual theories of change for each of the results areas,

in order to further inform prioritisation and thinking around partnerships. Finally, the RSA

framework could subsequently be used for review purposes during a mid-term review to revisit

contextual relevance and to facilitate discussion as to the extent to which the strategy has been

successfully implemented. Using the RSA in the mid-term review would also present an opportunity

to inform and prepare for the upcoming new strategy development process. The first two stages

would revisit and build on the initial extensive analysis done, and in the sense be ‘lighter’ and focus

on the latter stages of the RSA framework methodology.

13 | P a g e

Conclusions and recommendations

I. Added value to Sweden’s strategy development and planning processes

1. The RSA has proven to be useful and successful in supporting risk informed context

analysis but the analysis was constrained by the limited contextual knowledge of the

staff. External participation is required, including during the pre-analysis work (Briefing

Pack).

2. The RSA is partially successful in helping to break the silo approach and in

strengthening multilevel and cross-sectoral programming, including identifying

opportunities to strengthen mainstreaming of Sweden’s cross-cutting perspectives.

However, it needs more time to be accurate and again, a better understanding of the

context. External participation is required as well as management involvement to

ensure recommendations are not lost after the workshops.

3. The RSA is helpful to raise issues regarding humanitarian and development coherence

and successful when there is an effective participation and involvement of

humanitarians. However it does not resolve every issue surrounding the existing and

perceived barriers between development and humanitarian assistance.

4. There was confusion around what “most vulnerable” means. It is not only women and

youth; essential to take into account geographical, social and economic disparities as

well as the assets people have to maintain well-being and cope with crises. More

analysis is needed to strengthen programme teams’ understanding of the root causes

of vulnerability.

5. There is a strong consensus that the RSA adds greatest value at the strategy

development phase. It would be useful to carry out an RSA at all points in the

programme cycle to determine whether its added value would be strengthened when

used across the entire programme cycle.

6. Drawing on the experiences from the development of the Syria crisis strategy, further

explore ways in which the RSA could contribute to the overall method development in

regards to the formulation of overall and result area specific theories of change.

14 | P a g e

II. Post-2015 development commitments

In 2015 and 2016, Sweden signed a number of international frameworks and agreements. With

commitments regarding sustainable development (Sustainable Development Goals), financing for

development (Addis Ababa Action Agenda), natural hazards (Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk

Reduction), climate change (Paris Agreement), conflict and fragility (Stockholm Declaration) and the

humanitarian agenda (World Humanitarian Summit), Sweden has agreed on an ambitious and

comprehensive roadmap to deliver change and improve the standards of living worldwide. For

details of Sweden’s commitments, please refer to Annex III

One of the purposes of the Learning and Recommendations Report was to determine whether or not

the RSA could assist Sweden in meeting its post-2015 commitments. In particular those

commitments urge Sweden to:

1. Invest in risk informed analysis and improve the understanding of the context

2. Break the ‘silo’ approach by adopting multilevel and cross-sectoral programmes

3. Strengthen the coherence between humanitarian and development assistance

4. Enhance cross-agency co-operation and collaboration with multiple stakeholders

5. Boost the resilience

6. of institutions and communities to disasters and crises

7. Focus on ‘leaving no one behind’ and addressing he needs of those ‘furthest behind first’

Yet, the interviews conducted with headquarters and programme level staff for the preparation of

this report showed that there is variable awareness of those commitments within Sida. If there

seems to be a good understanding of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals in

general, the level of awareness regarding the rest of the commitments varies greatly between

departments and sectors. As highlighted by a participant “sometimes you are a bit stuck in your

portfolio, your area, you don't look at other things” and as a result, staff tend to be only aware of the

commitments linked to their respective areas of work. This lack of awareness results in limited

understanding of the interconnections between the different post-2015 frameworks, including the

focus on risk, vulnerability and resilience; and the need to strengthen the coherence between

development and humanitarian assistance.

The other issue, as several participants pointed out, is that Sida’s role regarding the implementation

of those commitments is “unclear”. There is a lack of instruction coming from the government on

how to deliver those commitments and a lack of guidance to translate them into practical action.

The Swedish commitments are therefore not systematically taken into account in the design of new

strategies and programmes which compromises their fulfilment in the long-term. Further guidance is

expected in future strategy steering based on the revised Swedish Policy Framework on aid and

humanitarian assistance.

While many of the commitments related to improving risk-informed analysis, strengthening multi-

level and cross-sectoral programming and building greater coherence between development,

humanitarian and political objectives are dealt with under Section I of this report, the following

section outlines specific findings regarding cross-agency collaboration, the strengthening of

15 | P a g e

resilience throughout Sweden’s strategies and programming and the commitment within post-2015

agreements to focus on ‘the furthest behind first’.

2.1 Enhancing cross-agency co-operation and stakeholder collaboration

Multi-stakeholder partnerships as well as cross-agency co-operation play an important role in

advancing development and in improving its effectiveness. The Sendai Framework recalls that

knowledge can be strengthened through sharing experiences, lessons learned, good practices and

training with government officials at all levels, civil society, as well as the private sector while the

Addis Ababa Action Plan encourages cross-agency co-operation as it helps to maximise international

development assistance’s effectiveness, impact and results.

The RSA provides mechanisms to improve knowledge sharing and build a common definition of the

main priorities. It also helps to identify possible partnerships through its stakeholder analysis that

maps internal and external support to improve the well-being of poor and vulnerable people. It also

provides different stakeholders with an understanding of their comparative advantage, namely

where they should invest funding, time and skills on the basis of their experience, knowledge and

reputation to ensure results effectiveness. For instance, it was highlighted during the workshops that

Sweden has a strong comparative advantage in regards to gender equality as well as to climate and

environment which both represent good opportunities to engage with other institutional donors to

strengthen programme implementation. Sweden is also perceived as a ‘neutral’ development

partner in countries like Syria which allows it to act where and when other development partners

cannot.

The RSA workshops have widely explored opportunities for new partnerships and reviewed the

current collaborations with governments, donors, the private sector and the civil society. And those

opportunities have been taken into account when writing the final reports. For instance, the

Operationalization Plan for Ethiopia quotes opportunities for pooling resources with Norway and

Austria to support Sweden’s efforts in Result Area 1.3 ‘Increased production of and improved access

to renewable energy’. Similarly, the Operationalization Plan for Kenya highlights the need to

strengthen dialogue and collaboration with the government and with other development partners

such as stakeholders in EU joint programming, the World Bank or the African Development Bank.

However, knowledge of the priorities and programmes of other donors and stakeholders will need

to be strengthened in order for Sweden to reflect further on its comparative advantage in a specific

context, as well as to identify critical gaps in which it (or other stakeholders) will need to address in

order to reach sustainable development outcomes.

However, interviewees were more circumspect with regard to the RSA’s added value in facilitating a

common understanding of Sweden’s comparative advantage. Here again, a lack of contextual

knowledge made it difficult to determine Sweden’s added value and strengths. This, in turn, became

a challenge in undertaking a stakeholder analysis and in determining the influence of a broad range

of stakeholders on Sweden’s programme portfolio. As such, a number of interviewees suggested

that the stakeholder analysis was not sharp enough, “too general” and “too complex”. With this in

mind, the inclusion of stakeholder mapping within the RSA workshop may need to be taken as a first

step and one that needs to be built upon and revisited periodically throughout the life of the

programme strategy to ensure that Sweden maintains an adequate understanding of the role and

16 | P a g e

inter-connection between diverse actors, their impact upon Sweden’s work, as well as opportunities

for collaboration.

Resilience is at the core of all the post-2015 international frameworks. The Paris Agreement adopted

after the COP21 urges states and other stakeholders to ‘increase the ability to adapt to the adverse

impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience’, the Sendai Framework calls for ‘investing in

disaster risk reduction for resilience’ and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda stresses the need to

strengthen the resilience of the most vulnerable communities to shocks through delivering social

protection and basic services. As stated in the Core Responsibilities of the World Humanitarian

Summit, building resilience helps to reduce people’s and institutions’ dependency on foreign

assistance, and allow them to better withstand crises. It is also a way to reinforce national and local

systems instead of bypassing them. Yet, donors and their partners continue to face difficulties in

translating the concept of resilience into programming on the ground.

The RSA was designed to help agencies and their partners to do just that, by analysing what is

needed to boost the resilience of people and institutions to environmental, political, social and

economic shocks and, on the basis of this analysis, drawing a ‘roadmap to resilience’ that defines

what to do and at which layer of the society. The RSA looks at key livelihoods assets that allow

people to maintain their well-being, namely their financial, human, natural, physical, political and

social capital, and how crises and shocks impact on those assets. This approach then allows

development partners to design programmes that draw on existing capacities to scale up the

resilience of households, communities and vulnerable groups.

The RSA seems to have improved the understanding of resilience as well as its importance. The

Development Strategy Proposal for Syria regional has a particular emphasis on resilience and

stresses the need to engage more at the local and district level in Syria to strengthen people’s

capacities to cope with the on-going conflict. Another example includes the Operationalisation Plan

for Ethiopia which explains that “resilience needs to be addressed through all the result areas in

synergy”.

That said, it is clear that many of the participants struggled with some of the key concepts

underlying resilience. As one interviewee noted, “colleagues were not necessarily comfortable with

some of the concepts like risk and there was little common understanding. There is nothing wrong

with the tool in this regard but it takes time for people to understand those concepts”. This was

particularly apparent with regard to people’s understanding of assets as expressed by one

interviewee: “The concept of assets is very new to many colleagues. It was one of the fundamental

ideas that came up. The RSA was very good and best approach I have seen but we are not used to

these concepts and that might be a drawback for RSA methodology”.

2.2 Leaving no one behind and reaching the ‘furthest behind first’

Similarly, RSA participants seemed to struggle with the RSA’s focus on vulnerability. While this is a

core concept running though the post-2015 agreements, with their emphasis on ‘leaving no-one

behind’ and meeting the needs of the ‘furthest behind, first’, there seemed to be a general lack of

consensus amongst participants as to whether this was in fact Sweden’s priority. For instance, some

interviewees reflected that “The RSA has clearly brought vulnerability to the table. The MDPA has

not emphasized the most vulnerable. Most of our countries are high risk contexts and we need that

17 | P a g e

focus on the most vulnerable’’ and ”the analysis of the programmes was very good in helping to

focus on vulnerabilities at different levels”. However, a number of interviewees questioned whether

this was, or should be, at the core of Sweden’s approach: “Methodology helps but sometimes too

much focuses on poorest of poor” and “Yes, the RSA is helpful but a challenge because Sida's overall

goal is ‘people living in poverty’ which is much wider than ‘the most vulnerable’”.

As a result, relatively few of the RSA recommendations regarding the targeting of the most

vulnerable was translated into reporting – with notable exceptions being the Syrian and Ethiopian

strategy and operational report. The lack of consensus around Sida’s role in targeting the most

vulnerable suggests that there is a management challenge for Sida and that there may be a need to

clarify the mandate of the agency and the extent to which it should focus on the ‘furthest behind

first’ in line with Sweden’s post-2015 commitments. This was reflected by a number of interviewees:

“The RSA report isn't much help if management doesn't come into support / ensure the

recommendations are not lost” and “management should have a check list or something to support

translation into reporting”.


II. Post-2015 development commitments

1. Awareness of post-2015 commitments are fairly narrowly focused around Agenda

2030. Further efforts should be made to increase awareness of other frameworks and

Sweden’s commitments within those frameworks. This should include a better

understanding of the inter-linkages between the various frameworks and Sweden’s

commitments.

2. The RSA is partially successful in identifying opportunities for cross agency cooperation

and multi-stakeholder collaboration but the approach needs to be narrowed as it is

impossible to comprehensively map all stakeholders operating in the country.

3. Looking at risks and assets to strengthen the resilience of people and institutions was

new for most participants and interviewees suggest that additional time is key to

integrate this approach. The notion of ‘risks’ was well understood but ‘assets’ less so.

There were also capacity limitations to determine the assets people use to maintain

18 | P a g e

III. Complementarity with other tools and opportunities and barriers

for integration

A key aim of this report is to identify opportunities and potential barriers to integrating systems

analysis approaches within Sida’s strategy development and programming processes. As Sida already

has a range of tools and approaches that contribute to these processes it is important to better

understand where the RSA might complement existing tools, or whether there is an overlap or

duplication. The following section aims to give guidance on whether the RSA may have added value,

either in its entirety, or whether specific elements of the RSA methodology may be a useful

complement to existing approaches.

3.1 Integration with other tools and approaches

Interviewees were asked to reflect on the extent to which they thought the RSA framework either

overlapped or was complementary with existing Sida methods and tools, including the

multidimensional poverty analysis (MDPA) guidance; theory of change methodologies; and the

various sectoral analyses that help programme staff to prioritise and integrate Sweden’s cross-

cutting perspectives, including gender, environment and climate, conflict sensitivity and rights-based

approaches.

Responses by interviewees indicated that there is some level of uncertainty as to what other

methods and tools existed, when they should be applied to strategy development and programming

processes, and how they should be used in a coherent manner. For instance, one interviewee stated

“which other methods do we have? I don't see really concrete methodology that provides a holistic

analysis - we just have really theoretical analyses. A risk informed analysis is needed”, while another

interviewee reflected “there is a lack of strategic guidance from the top-level. We need to see how

they fit together as a ‘toolbox’. For now it is messy and all over the place in terms of models and

approaches. We would like to have a map of available tools.” Similarly, there appears to be some

confusion over what constitutes a tool, with one interviewee making the observation that, with

regard to the integration of Sweden’s cross-cutting perspectives, “there are no tools, just

assessments done by a helpdesk.”

With regard to the MDPA, it is worth noting that there was a perception amongst some interviewees

that the RSA, the MDPA, and possibly also the tools used to develop theories of change, were

presented, to a certain extent as ‘competing’ methodologies. Many interviewees also saw the

potential for overlap but also thought that duplication could be avoided with clear guidance on how

and what tools should be used, or through a merging of tools and methodology. As one interviewee

put it; “it is important not to confuse people with too many analyses so important to put them all on

the table”. A further idea was to use the RSA as complimentary to the MDPA and use it to increase

the focus on risk, vulnerability and resilience building; “the RSA provides a holistic approach. Sida

didn't have that when it started working with the RSA. And it is a participatory process so it is not

duplicative. But what we are trying to do with MDPA does overlap a bit, so to make the RSA more

complementary, it could more clearly focus on risk vulnerability and resilience.”

Others suggested that the RSA or a similar framework could potentially be used to consolidate

different approaches and tools within the one framework, as articulated by this interviewee “the

19 | P a g e

RSA is both complementary and overlapping. Its strength and potential is that it can do deeper risk

analysis and it has the potential to bring together some of these tools into one approach.”

What was particularly clear from the interviews that were conducted, is that there is a reasonable

consensus that further work needs to be done to map out the various tools, frameworks and

approaches that are available to Sida staff, clearly setting out their strengths and weaknesses and

providing clearer guidance on what is available and appropriate for each stage of the programme

cycle.

3.2 To what extent can different module or tools within the RSA framework

be used flexibly and independently?

Interviewees were also asked to reflect on the possibility of using various elements of the RSA as

‘stand-alone’ tools to help improve strategy development and programme planning, including the

stakeholder analysis; risk analysis; ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ programme mapping; and vulnerability

mapping. Most interviewees suggested that these elements could be used independently, with one

person suggesting that “all of those could be used and integrated in into any sort of planning tool. All

are very strong and could be helpful as an add-on to MDPA model to complete that tool.”

Many interviewees in particular suggested that the stakeholder mapping, the systems analysis

(horizontal and vertical programme mapping) and the vulnerability mapping were particularly useful

and could be used independently to strengthen strategy development and planning processes.

However, the majority of respondents also suggested that part of the strength of the RSA

methodology was in using these tools together with comments such as “they need to be connected”

and “all of them could be used independently but it makes sense to use them interlinked.”


III. Complementarity with other tools/ opportunities and barriers

1. Further work needs to be done to map out the various tools, frameworks and

approaches that are available to Sida staff, clearly setting out their strengths and

weaknesses and providing clearer guidance on what is available and appropriate for

each stage of the programme cycle.

2. Explore further the possibility of the RSA being used as a framework that facilitates the

integration of other tools and approaches into strategy development and programme

planning.

3. Use the RSA in a complimentary manner to the MDPA, with a specific purpose of

strengthening risk-informed analysis, planning and decision-making, as well as an

increased focus on vulnerability and resilience-building in fragile contexts.

20 | P a g e

IV. Methodology

The previous section highlighted a number of opportunities and barriers for the integration of the

RSA within Sida’s strategy development and planning processes. This section describes the main

lessons that emerged regarding the use of the methodology more generally and identifies some

specific conclusions in regards to how the RSA framework could be applied to meet the needs of

donors broadly and Sida specifically.

The RSA framework was developed in 2014 by OECD/DAC after being tasked by its members to come

up with a way to better ‘operationalise’ resilience. In particular, the RSA was designed as a ‘light’

tool for field staff to help build a common understanding of the risks and assets that exist in a

‘system’ that impact upon people and institutions’ resilience and well-being; to strengthen cross-

sectoral working and the integration of programming at different ‘layers’ in the system – regional,

national, sub-national, community and household; and to further coherence between development,

humanitarian and peace and state-building approaches to ensure that the right actors are working in

the right place at the right time, on the basis of their respective comparative advantage to both

meet vulnerable communities immediate needs and also address longer term crisis drivers.

Originally conceptualised as a ‘multi-agency tool’, it was designed to convene different stakeholders,

including governments, donors, the UN system, civil society and the private sector. These key

outputs from an RSA are captured in a ‘programming matrix’ that highlights who should be doing

what, at which layer of society, to reduce risks, strengthen assets or manage the impact of risks to

strengthen resilience – again, on the basis of agencies’ respective comparative advantage. Both the

underlying methodological paper, as well as detailed guidance for conducting an RSA can be found

here.

Prior to the collaboration with Sida, OECD/DAC has supported the use of the RSA as a multi-agency

analysis, often supporting the UN system, in DRC, Somalia, Lebanon and South Sudan. Sida is the first

OECD-DAC member to pilot the use of the tool to inform ‘single agency’ strategy development and

planning processes. Sida is also the first institutional donor to make explicitly work with the RSA with

the purpose of informing its own strategy processes. As such, this has involved the flexible use of the

tool and on-going adaption of the methodology, including to account for different country

programme contexts and the use of the RSA at different points in Sida’s programme cycle.

4.1 Lessons from the pilot phase to improve the RSA methodology

As outlined in previous sections, interviewees highlighted a number of strengths of the RSA. In

particular, the participatory nature of the RSA was recognised as a positive element of the analysis,

with one interviewee stating that “the RSA is positive because it forces people to think, you have to

bring your own brain.” The ‘systems approach’ of analysing programme portfolios in terms of their

implementation at different layers of society, the balance of programming at each layer and the

interconnections and dependencies between these programmes was also seen as being of particular

value. There was recognition that the focus on assets and the use of a ‘risk lens’ also helped to

prioritise the targeting of vulnerability and helped programme staff with prioritisation, planning and

decision making in strategy development and portfolio design. Finally, many interviewees made the

point that it is the only tool that attempts to bring together development and humanitarian

http://www.oecd.org/dac/conflict-fragility-resilience/risk-resilience.htm

21 | P a g e

colleagues to build a common understanding of the country context and their respective

comparative advantage in addressing needs within that context.

That said, various limitations of the RSA were also identified. One constraint that was highlighted by

a number of interviewees was that the language and the concepts used within the RSA were

unfamiliar to Sida staff and were not coherent with the language used within the agency more

generally. In some respects this was unsurprising as the piloting of the RSA was guided by the OECD

as an ‘external’ agency, however it is clear that were the RSA to be successfully integrated into Sida’s

way of working, further efforts would need to be made to articulate the guidance and concepts into

terminology that is already used and accepted within the agency.

As a related issue, a number of interviewees also highlighted that, despite the RSA’s strengths as a

participatory methodology, ownership of the process during the pilot project was weak both

amongst headquarters staff and country programme teams. In particular, interviewees highlighted

that programme staff and analysts needed to be more engaged in the development of the pre-

analysis and the briefing pack prior to the workshop, as well as the reporting following the analysis,

with one interviewee recommending “the briefing pack is interesting but people need to be involved.

With regard to the report, they should see it as their report and programme teams could write it,

with assistance, or at least be able to comment it.”

Communications was also highlighted as an issue generally with regard to the RSA. Interviewees

reflected that the purpose of the pilots targeting both the Africa department as well as other key

stakeholder units needed to be better explained, in order to avoid misunderstandings and foster

ownership. Once again, the point was made that clearer signals should also have been given in

regards to the need to ensure ownership and engagement by the individual programme teams.

With regards to the structure of the workshops themselves, most participants reflected that three

days was adequate time for the workshop itself. However, using the RSA framework requires

programme teams to engage in the analysis prior to the workshop, through involvement in the pre-

analysis, taking time to understand the methodology and participating in exercises prior to the

workshop (the extent to which this was done during the pilot phase varied between countries,

depending on the time and resources available prior to the actual workshop). Participants often felt

that they did not have adequate time to prepare for that the workshop and this, at times resulted in

a lack of engagement during the workshop. There were several suggestions that the RSA

methodology could employ to overcome these constraints if it were used more flexibly, with the

phasing of different modules over a longer time period. This would include a pre-analysis step,

involving headquarters and programme staff, as well as a follow-up step to ensure that the

recommendations emerging from the workshops are prioritised and implemented.

In addition to the lessons above two key issues emerged and were reflected by a majority of those

interviewed. Firstly, that there are critical capacity constraints within Sida, not just in terms of time

constraints but in terms of both headquarters and programme staff contextual and programmatic

knowledge; and, secondly the role of management in providing clear guidance in the

implementation of recommendations emerging from the RSA. These issues are detailed with in more

detail below.

22 | P a g e

4.2 Capacity limitations within Sida

It was not uncommon for workshop participants to struggle at various steps of the analysis, although

this differed between programme teams depending on their strengths and weaknesses. One overall

observation was that the exercises on mapping out the risk landscape, key assets (knowledge of

social capital was a particular weakness in many of the contexts), as well as the current and future

impact on the key assets when exposed to shocks and stressors proved difficult for the programme

teams. Equally, the programme teams found it difficult to identify relevant programme opportunities

aimed at supporting coping mechanisms at various layers in the particular context. Additionally,

many programme teams lacked knowledge of what other actors, including government authorities

and other institutional donors were prioritising, and therefore struggled to identify Sweden’s

comparative advantage. As many pointed out, the lack of in-depth contextual knowledge came as

somewhat of a surprise to programme teams, as expressed by one interviewee “this is one of the

more interesting findings. We lack knowledge. We are not used to evidence based planning which the

RSA forces us to apply. But this lack of knowledge is not unique to Sida, it is similar in other

organisations with too many generalists and too few experts. We should invite more experts in our

strategic planning.”

Many of those interviewed suggested the involvement of external participants with contextual and

sectoral knowledge, including other institutional donor representatives, as a means of overcoming

this constraint. This had been suggested by the organisers when planning the workshops, but none

one the programme teams saw the need at the time for significant involvement of external

participants.

Related to the above, many also found it difficult to approach the analysis from the angle of poor

and vulnerable people’s perspectives in that the starting point of the analysis is existing coping

capacities and assets at various layers in a given society. This may in part be connected to the above

point on limited contextual awareness, but is probably also a consequence of working through a

‘sector-lens’, which amplifies as ‘siloed’ way of working at the expense of multi-sectoral

programming.

A further point related to internal capacity and organisational set-up is the lack of available

information on Sida’s overall investments in a particular context. Information on humanitarian

funding is relatively accessible, but that is not the case for other thematic funding streams, nor

regional and global programmes. Furthermore, there is at present no systematic way of tracking the

geographical coverage even within the bilateral strategy programme portfolio, which limits Sida’s

ability to make strategic decisions and ensuring a balanced and mutually reinforcing programme

portfolio. It further weakens Sida’s ability to target extreme poverty and vulnerability in a systematic

manner. A new administrative system launched recently within Sida is expected to at least partly

address this issue.

4.3 The role of management

The extent to which the recommendations from the RSA reports were picked up in the work going

forward has been discussed in previous sections. In order for Sida to ensure that findings and

recommendations are taken forward, and there is a continued investment in evidence-based

23 | P a g e

planning aimed at improving relevance and effectiveness of programming, there is a strong need for

guidance from management on what tools and approaches to be used at what stage, ensuring

continuity and manageable processes. Sida’s management also has a critical role to play in making

use of the RSA reporting for dialogue and monitoring purposes. Finally, management will need to

consider how to address critical resourcing gaps in relation to contextual and programmatic

knowledge both at headquarters and within country programme teams.


IV. Methodology

1. Further efforts need to be made to articulate the guidance and concepts on the basis of


2. Communications on, and ownership of, the RSA methodology needs to be

strengthened throughout Sida.

3. The RSA methodology could be revised to allow it to be used more flexibly, taking a

modular approach that includes a pre-analysis step, involving headquarters and

programme staff, as well as a follow-up step to ensure that the recommendations

emerging from the workshops are prioritised and followed up.

4. The RSA needs to strengthen the involvement of external experts to overcome

limitations in contextual knowledge

5. There is a greater role for management in helping to address the contextual and

programmatic capacity constraints of Sida staff and in providing clear guidance in the

implementation of recommendations emerging from the RSA.

24 | P a g e

V. Recommendations

This report set out to draw some main conclusions from the experiences gained during the OECD –

SIDA collaboration on piloting the RSA framework within Sweden’s development cooperation

strategy processes. In particular, the study has looked into whether the RSA framework added value

in terms of improving strategic direction and effective programming, and whether it also supported

Sweden to translate and deliver on its post-2015 commitments. The report also aims to assess the

RSA’s coherence and complementarity with Sida’s existing and emerging processes, tools and

approaches. Finally, the report explores some of the lessons learned from applying the methodology

to inform single agency strategy processes.

The following section is a summary of the main conclusions and recommendations from the report:

Added value to Sweden’s strategy development and planning processes

1. The RSA has proven to be useful and successful in supporting risk informed context analysis but

the analysis was constrained by the limited contextual knowledge of the staff. External

participation is required, including during the pre-analysis work (Briefing Pack).

2. The RSA was partially successful in helping to break the silo approach and in strengthening

multilevel and cross-sectoral programming, including identifying opportunities to strengthen

mainstreaming of Sweden’s cross-cutting perspectives. But it needs more time to be accurate

and again, a better understanding of the context. External participation, as well as management

involvement is required to ensure recommendations are not lost after the workshops.

3. The RSA is helpful to raise issues regarding humanitarian and development coherence and

successful when there is an effective participation and involvement of humanitarians. However it

does not resolve every issue surrounding the existing and perceived barriers between

development and humanitarian assistance.

4. There was confusion around what “most vulnerable” means. It is not only women and youth; it is

essential to take into account geographical, social and economic disparities as well as the assets

people have to maintain well-being and cope with crises. More analysis is needed to strengthen

programme teams’ understanding of the root causes of vulnerability.

5. There is a strong consensus that the RSA adds greatest value at the strategy development phase.

It would be useful to carry out an RSA at all points in the programme cycle to determine whether

its added value would be strengthened when used across the entire programme cycle.

6. Drawing on the experiences from the development of the Syria crisis strategy, Sida could further

explore ways in which the RSA could contribute to the overall method development in regards to

the formulation of overall and result area specific theories of change.

25 | P a g e

Post-2015 development commitments

1. Awareness of post-2015 commitments are fairly narrowly focused around Agenda 2030. Further

efforts should be made to increase awareness of other frameworks and Sweden’s commitments

within those frameworks. This should include a better understanding of the inter-linkages

between the various frameworks and Sweden’s commitments.

2. The RSA is partially successful in identifying opportunities for cross agency cooperation and

multi-stakeholder collaboration but the approach needs to be narrowed as it is impossible to

comprehensively map all stakeholders operating in the country.

3. Looking at risks and assets to strengthen the resilience of people and institutions was new for

most participants and interviewees suggest that additional time is key to integrate this approach.

The notion of ‘risks’ was well understood but ‘assets’ less so. There were also capacity limitations

to determine the assets people use to maintain and strengthen their well-being and how to build

on those assets.

4. There needs to be greater clarity and management guidance on Sida’s focus on the most

vulnerable as part of Sweden’s post-2015 commitments of reaching the ‘furthest behind first.’

Complementarity with other tools/opportunities and barriers

1. Further work needs to be done to map out the various tools, frameworks and approaches that

are available to Sida staff, clearly setting out their strengths and weaknesses and providing

clearer guidance on what is available and appropriate for each stage of the programme cycle.

2. Explore further the possibility of the RSA being used as a framework that facilitates the

integration of other tools and approaches into strategy development and programme planning.

3. Use the RSA in a complimentary manner to the MDPA, with a specific purpose of strengthening

risk-informed analysis, planning and decision-making, as well as an increased focus on

vulnerability and resilience-building in fragile contexts.

Methodology

1. Further efforts need to be made to articulate the guidance and concepts on the basis of


2. Communications on, and ownership of, the RSA methodology needs to be strengthened

throughout Sida.

3. The RSA methodology could be revised to allow it to be used more flexibly, taking a modular

approach that includes a pre-analysis step, involving headquarters and programme staff, as well

as a follow-up step to ensure that the recommendations emerging from the workshops are

prioritised and implemented.

26 | P a g e

4. The RSA needs to strengthen the involvement of external experts to overcome limitations in

contextual knowledge.

5. There is a greater role for management in helping to address the contextual and programmatic

capacity constraints of Sida staff and in providing clear guidance in the implementation of

recommendations emerging from the RSA.

Drawing on the recommendations above, some of the policy implications would suggest that there

is a need to ensure that risk informed analysis and planning is integrated within Sida’s tools and

processes, and that greater clarity is needed around opportunities and barriers in strengthening

coherence between humanitarian, development , and state and peacebuilding approaches. This also

emphasises that need to clarify Sida’s position around targeting vulnerability and those people most

vulnerable to various risks and stressors. Finally, at a policy level there is an opportunity to making

better use of Sweden’s cross-cutting perspectives in achieving stronger synergies between results

areas and sector programming.

Similarly, the above recommendations emphasise the need for management involvement in follow-

up of RSA report recommendations, as well as ensuring that the application of the RSA framework is

supported by adequate levels of resources and capacity. Management decision making is also

needed to ensure clarity around ownership of the RSA tools within Sida.

Finally, related to methodology and ensuring that Sida is using the methodology in the most

beneficial way, the findings above indicate that there is an urgent need to conduct a mapping

exercise of all available tools within Sida, emphasising the appropriateness of each and their

potential complementarity, as well as when and how to use a tool in a programme cycle, and what

tools are appropriate for what types of contextual programmes. There is also an urgent need to

consider how to phase-in and introduce new tools and approaches. The report also highlights a

need to ensure that Sida makes use of external contextual and programming expertise to address

capacity gaps or weaknesses within its programme teams.

Options for next steps

1. The RSA is integrated into Sida’s strategy development and planning processes with

accompanying capacity support and training.

As before, there is evidence that the RSA adds value to Sida’s strategy development and

programming processes. However, the piloting phase of this work also highlighted various

constraints limiting its use within Sida. As such, integrating the RSA into Sida’s systems and

approaches would need to address the various recommendations set out in this report. In

particular, management support for the use of the methodology and the translation of RSA

recommendations into subsequent reporting processes would need to be strengthened. Staff

‘ownership’ of the tool would also need to be addressed both at headquarters and programme

level and across both development and humanitarian divisions within Sida.

These constraints might be addressed, in part, through alignment with current Sida terminology,

as well as training and capacity building for key personnel to support the use of the methodology.

In addition, a number of methodological aspects of the RSA were raised during the pilot phase

27 | P a g e

and these would also need to be addressed – including ensuring that Sida made greater use of

external expertise during strategy development and programme planning processes and ensuring

that more time and capacity is allocated to following up on elements of the RSA following in-

country workshops.

Finally, it was clear during the interviews for this report that the RSA is seen as adding greatest

value during strategy development processes. As such, the integration of the RSA should take a

phased approach, with initial investment focused on the use of the RSA at this point in the

programme cycle.

2. The RSA is integrated with our tools and approaches, in particular with the multidimensional

poverty analysis currently being developed

The RSA’s demonstrated value in strengthening risk informed context analysis and in highlighting

and emphasising vulnerability does not have a strong focus within Sida’s other available tools and

approaches. As such, there may be value in attempting to integrate these aspects of the RSA

methodology into existing tools, including the MDPA, in particular to ensure that Sweden delivers

on its post-2015 commitments. Such an approach would require a ‘mapping’ of current tools and

approaches and clear guidance for where and how elements of the RSA can be applied.

This approach may also address the issue of the RSA being perceived as an ‘external’ approach

and help to build greater ownership for these elements of the tool within Sida. There may

however be limitations as to the extent to which it is possible to merge different approaches and

the possibility that there may be some resistance to such an approach. As such, this would need

clear management direction and support.

3. The RSA is used on an ad hoc and demand-driven basis without further integration into Sida’s

planning and programming processes

The use of the RSA on a country-by-country, demand-driven basis would help to address the

constraints regarding weak ownership of the methodology. It would also help to ensure that the

RSA is applied in those contexts that would gain maximum value from adopting a risk-informed

systems approach. This approach could be supported by further revision to the methodology to

allow it to be more flexibly applied and, where appropriate, individual ‘modules’ could be used by

respective country programmes.

That said, there is currently limited capacity within Sida to support the ad hoc use of the

methodology and there would be relatively few incentives to develop such capacities going

forward with such an approach. In addition, the OECD’s own capacity and availability to provide

on-going support for the ad-hoc use of the RSA may be limited.

4. Sida does not make future use of the RSA methodology

The learning and recommendations report indicates that the use of the RSA has had

demonstrated value, especially with regard to strengthening risk-informed context analysis and in

supporting cross-sectoral and integrated programming. This has been demonstrated both in

interviews with headquarters and programme staff and in the translation of RSA

recommendations into reporting processes.

28 | P a g e

It is also clear, however, that various constraints have limited its value and impact, including

weak ownership of the methodology amongst both programme staff and management, as well as

the use of concepts and terminology that are unfamiliar and not well aligned with Sida’s

processes. On this basis, the ‘transaction cost’ of integrating the methodology within Sida’s

strategy development and programming processes may be perceived as being too high.

However, were that to be the case, Sida would need to give further consideration as to how

current tools and approaches can be adapted to ensure that it meets its commitments within the

post-2015 frameworks – in particular, those relating to risk informed programming, building

greater coherence between development, humanitarian and peace and statebuilding approaches

and the focus on ‘leaving no-one behind’ and reaching ‘the furthest behind first’.

29 | P a g e

Annex I – Terms of reference for the RSA Learning and

Recommendations report

1.0 Background

During 2015, the OECD and Sida began collaborating in the use of a Resilience Systems Analysis (RSA)

framework to inform the development of the Regional Syria Crisis Response Strategy and the mid-

term review of their Development Cooperation Strategy for Somalia. These analyses focused on

strengthening Sweden’s result strategies by enabling better risk-informed joint development and

humanitarian contextual analysis and by identifying and strengthening cross-sectoral linkages at

national, sub-national community and household layers within and between Sweden’s result areas

and portfolio contributions.

On the basis of these initial analyses, Sida and the OECD extended this collaboration, with a focus on

testing the added value for Sida in the use of the RSA framework to improve strategy development

and programme design and the integration of Sweden’s cross-cutting perspectives of poverty,

human rights, gender equality, climate and environment, and conflict sensitivity. There was also a

focus on the extent to which the use of the framework might assist Sweden in meeting its

commitments associated with post-2015 processes, especially commitments related to

strengthening risk-informed development and achieving greater coherence between development

and humanitarian programming.

As such, between April 2015 and June 2016 the RSA has been piloted in seven country or regional

programmes, at various points in the programme cycle – namely:

Strategy development

Syria Crisis Response Strategy for Lebanon and Jordan, April 2015

Syria Crisis Response Strategy for Syria, April 2015

Mid-term review

Mid-term Review of Sweden’s Development Cooperation Strategy for Somalia, November

2015

Mid-term Review of Sweden’s Development Cooperation Strategy for Sudan, February 2016

Mid-term Review of Sweden’s Development Cooperation Strategy for South Sudan, February

2016

Strategy operationalisation

Operationalisation of the Swedish Development Cooperation Strategy for Kenya, March

2016

Operationalisation for the Swedish Development Cooperation for Ethiopia, May 2016

The following Terms of Reference set out the approach for this collaboration, along with the

associated roles and responsibilities, timelines and resource requirements.

30 | P a g e

2.0 Objectives

The Learning & Recommendations Report aims to consolidate the analysis to date and to gather

feedback from Sida to capture lessons from this work and to provide recommendations to inform

decision-making on the future use of the RSA, or its elements, within Sida’s systems and processes

for strategy development and programming.

In particular, the report aims to provide recommendations regarding the following key questions:

1. To what extent does the RSA ‘add value’ to the design of Sweden’s development

cooperation strategies and Sida’s respective programme portfolios? In particular, the

extent to which it:

a. Strengthens common risk-informed context analysis;

b. Reinforces linkages between programmes at different layers (national, sub-national,

community, household) and between Result Areas;

c. Highlights common elements across country programmes (sectors and result areas)

that could be addressed;

d. Supports the integration and achievement of Sweden’s cross-cutting perspectives on

the basis of Sweden’s comparative advantage;

e. Facilitates greater coherence between Sweden’s development, humanitarian and

political objectives

2. Is the RSA useful in supporting Sweden in translating post-2015 commitments into

practical, concrete action:

a. Facilitating the achievement of points 1a and 1d, above;

b. Clarifies and focuses Sweden’s country programme portfolios on ‘Leaving no-one

behind’, particularly in fragile and conflict affected contexts;

c. Strengthens inter-agency coordination and collaboration and highlights Sweden’s

contribution to the wider development context;

d. Aligns with other frameworks and processes being used by other DAC members, the

UN system and other partners (feedback and comments to be sought from other

institutional donors and partners)

3. What are the opportunities and barriers with regard to the RSA’s coherence and

complementarity with Sweden’s existing processes, tools and organisational approaches:

a. Is the RSA better suited for different points in Sida’s programme cycle i.e. strategy

development, review or operationalisation?

b. What opportunities are there for greater integration between the RSA, the

multidimensional poverty analysis, conflict sensitivity, gender, climate and

environment tools and the development of theories of change? Or can they be used

in parallel to support strategy and programme development?

c. What are the capacity limitations in systematically using the RSA framework in

strategy development and programming? And what would be required to build

Sida’s capacity for the systematic use of the RSA?

31 | P a g e

d. What are the opportunities and constraints in applying the RSA framework to both

development and humanitarian systems and processes?

4. To what extent is the methodological framework of the RSA ‘fit for purpose’?

a. Is the framework well-suited to achieving 1-3 above?

b. To what extent can different module or tools within the framework be used flexibly

and independently?

c. What learning from the collaboration with Sida can be applied to improve the

methodology of the RSA?

d. Can the approach and learning from the OECD-Sida collaboration be applied and

replicated with other OECD-DAC members or their partners (feedback and

comments to be sought from other institutional donors and partners)

3.0 Approach

The Learning & Recommendations Report will be developed on the basis of both key informant

interviews and ‘desk-based analysis’. This will include a consolidation of the recommendations from

the seven RSAs completed during the pilot phase of this work – both to identify common elements

from the analyses and to highlight any opportunities and challenges that arose. This will be

complemented by key informant interviews with both Headquarters and programme level staff to

assess the perceived added value of the RSA, its application within Sida’s systems, processes and

organisational context; and to gather feedback on the quality and suitability of the methodology.

The analysis will also review the extent to which recommendations developed as a result of RSA

reports have informed the drafting of country strategy plans, mid-term programme reports and

country programme operationalisation plans; and the extent to which the RSA methodology is

aligned with emerging systems and processes within other agencies.

Key informant interviews are planned with the following stakeholders (please note that the list

below could change and should not be considered final)

Somalia unit:

Urban Sjöström, Head of Development Cooperation

Per Karlsson, Senior Programme Manager

Sudan:

Anna Furubom- Guittet, Sida Representative in Sudan

South Sudan:

Ola Nilsmo, Sida Representative in South Sudan

Kenya unit:

Sandra Diesel, Head of Development Cooperation

Elisabeth Folkunger, Senior Programme Manager, Environment/ Climate

Lollo Darin, Economist

Ethiopia unit:

Anneka Knutsson, Head of Unit

32 | P a g e

Stina Karltun, Programme Manager, Democracy, Human Rights & Gender

Syria Unit:

Marie Wikström, Programme Manager, Democracy & Human Rights

Sida Headquarters staff

Annika Nordin Jayawardena, Deputy Director, Africa Department

Erik Korsgren, Head of Unit, ANASTRAT, Africa Department

Karin-Anette Andersson, Head of Unit, Sustainable Development, Africa Department

Staffan Smedby, Head of Unit, Africa Department

Angelica Broman, Analyst – Somalia & Kenya, Africa Department

Abdullahi Aress, Analyst – Sudan & South Sudan, Africa Department

Moa Bergman, Analyst – Ethiopia, Africa Department

Johan Kiessling, Analyst & Economist, Africa Department

Jessica Eliasson, Policy Specialist, Humanitarian Assistance, HUMASIA Department

Elisabeth Hedin, Policy Specialist, Human Security

Malin Stawe, Deputy Head of MENA unit, HUMASIA Department

Axel Nyström, Programme Manager, HUMASIA Department (Syria)

Adam Kahsai-Rudebeck, Programme Manager, Humanitarian Assistance, HUMASIA

Department

Pedro Figureido, Programme Manager, Humanitarian Assistance, HUMASIA Department

True Shedvin, Policy Specialist, Chief Economist Team

Annie Sturesson, Policy Specialist, Chief Economists Team

Lina Hjalmarsson, Coordinator, Department for Policy

MFA

Johanna Teague Coordinator for Development Cooperation, Department for Africa

4.0 Timeline

Interviewing and analysis for the report will be conducted throughout July and August 2016, with the

recommendations report submitted to Sida’s Head of Africa Division by the end of September 2016.

5.0 Management, focal points and advisory group

The Learning & Recommendations Report will be a ‘jointly owned’ process by Sida and the OECD.

The development of the report will be supported by an Advisory Group within Sida, composed of the

following proposed participants:

Erik Korsgren, Head of Unit, ANASTRAT, Africa Department

Johan Kiessling, Analyst, Africa Department

True Schedvin, Policy Specialist, Chief Economist Team

Jessica Eliasson, Policy Specialist, Humanitarian Unit, HUMASIA department

Christina Etzell, Policy Specialist, Methods Department

Lina Hjalmarsson, Coordinator, Department for Policy

33 | P a g e

Rachel Scott, Head of Unit, Conflict, Fragility and Resilience, OECD

The purpose of this Advisory Group will be to provide feedback into the approach; to review and

validate the quality and impartiality of the analysis; and to support the review and potential uptake

of the recommendations arising from the report.

The lead focal points for development of the Learning & Recommendations Report will be Sida’s

Humanitarian and Resilience Advisor for Africa; and the OECD’s Policy Advisor in the Development

Cooperation Directorate’s Conflict, Fragility and Resilience Unit.

34 | P a g e

Annex II – How the RSA recommendations have informed strategy

proposals and strategies, operationalisation plans, and extended

strategy reports (for mid-term reviews).

Blue: Recommendations from the RSA that made their way into the final report Red: what is missing/hasn’t been used

Syria Crisis Strategy Development (including Jordan & Lebanon)

RA1: local governance strengthening for improved service provision, livelihoods and human security including SGBV sexual and gender-based violence RA2: democracy, gender equality and human rights

Recommendations in the Jordan and Lebanon RSA report

1. Local governance strengthening for improved service provision and access for all

(building capacity of local authorities in assessment, planning and delivery of multi-sector services)

- “Formal and informal local government key player to provide or restore basic services such as water, sanitation, education and health”

- “better to preserve the structure and capacity for eventually being able to reform so that local administration delivers services to all on equal terms”.

- strengthening local authorities’ capacity around civil documentation and participatory approaches, ensuring coherent linkages between local service provision and national and regional policies

- Important dimension is to “strengthen local governance capacity in a participatory and

inclusive approach and to strengthen transparency, financial control, anti-corruption and

accountability’

- “To the extent possible, local initiatives should also be in line with national and regional

policy frameworks.”

- support for community-based awareness-raising

- “increased access to basic services is achieved through support for initiatives to create

awareness among people”

2. Livelihoods :

Ensuring that there are inclusive policy frameworks that facilitate access to employment and social

protection mechanisms,

- “In neighbouring countries the main focus should be on promoting effective and inclusive

policy framework on access to labour markets and social safety nets”

- reducing the informal economy through regularisation of work permits. This will involve

engagement with government, as well as new partnerships with the private sector and

others

- “Syria's economy has been adapted to the protracted conflict with new players enriching

themselves during war times. This reduces the motivation of key parties in the conflict to

achieve peace. Improved livelihood outside the war economy is therefore central”

- “slow the growth of the informal economy through eg regularization of work”

35 | P a g e

- Opportunities of partnerships with cultural and religious actors, as well as private sector

Strengthening people’s skills and resources

- “vocational training is another potential area for Sweden to focus on”

- “support for training is a possible way to create livelihood opportunities for vulnerable

groups, including refugees from Syria and especially for women, by enabling the start-up of

small businesses”

3. Human security including sexual and gender-based violence

Supporting conflict sensitivity and incentivising positive cross-community dialogue

- “press for strengthened social cohesion and stronger relationships between confessional and

ethnic groups”

- “Sweden has an advantage in this area that a more neutral player and has initiated important

partnerships that can expand.”

Increasing awareness of key issues including SGBV and the need for the special protection of children

- local protection measures, including linked to gender-based violence and the rule functions

can be strengthened by the local administration

- “In Syria as well as in neighbouring countries, the lack of income led to reduced school

attendance and child exploitation such as child labour and the conscription of children into

armed groups”

- “Other negative survival mechanisms in Syria as well as in neighbouring countries, including

sex trafficking and early marriage, which affects women and girls particularly hard”

Strengthen key policy frameworks such as IHL and IHRL

- “strengthen respect for the rule of law, which dealt with the results area two, as well as

human rights and humanitarian law.”

Building the capacity of the independent media and civil society to play an active role as a watchdog

- Syrian, Lebanese and Jordan civil society: super important, highlighted several times

“Media and civil society have an important role to play as guardian of, and disseminator of

information”

4. Strengthened democracy

Increased support for women and youth networks

- “Given the boys 'and girls' special vulnerability during the ongoing conflict it is the most

important target groups.”

Investment in supporting innovative technologies and new media

- “striving for better access to, and information regarding, markets in Syria, which could

include innovative, such as IT-based methods”

- ‘For example, a statute for independent journalism ethics developed and signed by several

organizations. Sweden also supports the new radio stations that broadcast into Syria. It is

important to continue to support and build these organizations and not focus on short-term

support at risk to build unsustainable structures.’

Strengthen access to justice

- “support professional networks that contribute to greater protection for example in the field

of justice”

36 | P a g e

Strengthening of civil society to ensure that it is representative of vulnerable groups

- “The Lebanese and Jordanian civil society is active in providing assistance to refugees and

groups in vulnerable situations and are major players both to maintain service but also

because they are strong advocacy actors”

- Support “knowledge of human rights and gender equality of Syrian organizations and

institutions in Syria and in exile”

5. Gender equality

Support for the mainstreaming of gender sensitive needs into all aspects of service provision and

consideration in the planning and delivery of services.

Strengthening women and youth networks to ensure that they have the skills, resources and capacity

to engage in peace-building efforts.

- ‘strengthen women's economic empowerment should be a key component to integrate in all

the work for increased livelihood opportunities’

- Related to peace building efforts: “Sweden has experience in this field and a continued

important mandate to support Syrian women with advocacy and capacity support to take

place at various negotiations”

6. Human rights

Ensure that emerging actors, such as new media and activist networks, have the skills and resources

to contribute to awareness and the realisation of people’s rights

- “civil society is an important resource for the future”. “important civil society in Lebanon and

Jordan”

- “Civil society actors are central both as a dialogue partner , a voice to victims , advocacy

actors and implementers of the Swedish strategy”

Ensuring that established actors such as the private sector can play an active role in addressing labour

exploitation and other rights violations.

- Missing but private sector mentioned as a possible dev partner

Supporting innovation and new ways of sharing information, strengthening new media technology

- “striving for better access to, and information regarding, markets in Syria, which could

include innovative, such as IT-based methods”

Recommendations in the Syria RSA report

1. Local governance strengthening

Ensure improved access to multi-sector basic service delivery for vulnerable people within Syria,

- “Formal and informal local government is a key player to provide or restore basic services such as water, sanitation , education and health”

- “Sweden should investigate the possibility of supporting innovative solutions, such as ICT-based education initiatives in besieged or hard to reach places”

Build good governance principles and practices

- “An important dimension would be in line with the principles of good governance:

strengthening local governance capacity in a participatory and inclusive approach and to

strengthen transparency, financial control, anti-corruption and accountability”

37 | P a g e

Supporti inter-communal relations and social cohesion through the building of trust between local

authorities and communities and the strengthening of social capital

- “press for strengthened social cohesion and stronger relationships between confessional and

ethnic groups”

2. Livelihoods

Ensure that value chains and financial services are accessible and inclusive; that micro-credit, grants

and cash-based programming are aligned with livelihood opportunities

- “access to effective financial services free from discrimination in order to maintain the value

chains based in remittances in Syria as well as in neighbouring countries”

Strengthening people’s skills and resources, including support for community-based entrepreneur

skills, promoting innovations and improving women’s economic empowerment.

- “Vocational training” as potential area to explore

- Support “specific programs aimed at strengthening women's economic empowerment”

Better understanding the impact of the growing informal sector

- “A prerequisite for effective aid efforts is an increased understanding of how markets work

in Syria. Many stakeholders have identified the lack of knowledge about this as a problem, so

Sweden should investigate the possibility of supporting studies in this area.”

3. Improved human security, including addressing sexual and gender-based violence

Strengthening of services, including trauma, psychosocial support and mental health services.

- “Sweden's efforts against gender-based violence should primarily consist of support to

strengthen the provision of public services like trauma and psycho-social support and mental

health to give women, girls, boys and men the opportunity to better manage and recover

from gender-based and other violence”

Address and better understand underlying drivers and stresses that contribute to incidents of SGBV

and other negative coping mechanisms, including prioritising the need for sustainable employment

and livelihood opportunities.

- “promote a better understanding of underlying drivers of gender-based violence and other

negative coping strategies. An important link is the creation of livelihood opportunities as

part of reducing the underlying stress factors’

Educate, inform and address SGBV issues while also working toward greater coherence between

policies, norms and frameworks at the national, regional and international levels.

- “need to act preventively for the transformative change by working with and through civil

society, in order to inform and respond to gender-based and other types of violence and

related issues such as children's need for protection and special attention, support conflict

sensitivity, while working for greater continuity between the policies, standards and

frameworks at national, regional and international levels”

- Support to “specific programs and aimed at changing attitudes to gender-based and other

violence.”

38 | P a g e

Implementation of security council resolutions 1325 and 1820 throughout the two results areas +

emphasis on the need for the special protection and needs of children.

- “increasingly engage the local governance in protecting children's rights”

- “The need for implementation of UN Resolution 1325 is important and a national action plan

is missing.’

- ‘Sweden has experience in this field and a continued important mandate to support Syrian

women with advocacy and capacity support to take place at various negotiations’

4. Strengthened democracy

Focus on supporting the education and skills people need to effectively contribute to democratic

process and dialogue.

- “The objective of supporting civil society is to create space for dialogue and provide an

opportunity to work in an extremely repressive environment. Sweden can contribute to

creating the conditions for influence, dialogue, mediation, meeting places, both at local and

national level, while strengthening the capacity of organizations”

Engaging with and strengthening local authorities, and ensuring linkages to democracy strengthening

opportunities at national, regional and local levels.

- “contribute to building the capacity of local institutions, organizations and professional

networks that help to maintain or build the conditions for a democratic society and

participatory processes in Syria and neighboring countries”

At a national and regional level, invest in strengthening engagement with key actors, including

Diaspora groups, networks of professionals and professional and ensuring that women and young

play a role

- “support professional networks that contribute to greater protection for example in the field

of justice”

5. Gender equality

Strengthening access and equality of services for women, men, girls and boys, including girls’

education and awareness of sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Promotion of women and youth leadership skills and networks and the strengthening of legal

frameworks ensuring equal access to land and inheritance.

- Support for Syrian advocacy network, including women's rights organizations, campaigning

for quality and participate in relevant local and international meetings on the situation in

Syria.

6. Human rights

- Same as for Jordan and Lebanon. Syria: “New players in the media landscape is important for

change and help to Syrian citizens have access to independent reporting”

- preparation for a gender sensitive and inclusive constitutional process in which over 50

Syrian organizations, including 450 women and human rights activists took part in 2014.

- “statute for independent journalism ethics developed and signed by several organizations.

Sweden also supports the new radio stations that broadcast into Syria. It is important to

39 | P a g e

continue to support and build these organizations and not focus on short-term support at

risk to build unsustainable structures.’

Other things coming from RSA:

- Definition of resilience of the OECD has replaced their previous definition. Good understanding of

how important resilience is.

- Resilience “requires that support is provided at all levels of society; regional, national, provincial, local

and at the household level through an integrated national / international response involving both

humanitarian and development-oriented assistance”

- “Sida therefore suggests that the strategy is planned and implemented so that it relieves and

complements humanitarian assistance. In this way, Sweden can improve the conditions for the

humanitarian system to focus on their most important task; to save lives and alleviate suffering,

while avoiding unnecessary gap between the two types of aid.”

- “Sweden can make the greatest difference to their development cooperation by supporting programs

that build capacity in local governance body with a mandate to meet vulnerable people's needs as

well as to seek local solutions to problems in terms of increased access to social services”

- Comparative advantage: “Several players with an ear to the ground have confirmed the image of

Sweden in Syria as a relatively neutral donor in a context marked by foreign interests and clearly

politicized aid. This can contribute to the trust which will be necessary for a long-term commitment

inside Syria, not least with regard to the proposed aid to local governance. In addition, Sweden has

thematic expertise and experience to draw on: gender-based violence as well as the local

government's traditional profile of Swedish development cooperation.”

- Opportunities for synergies, but also potential overlap, particularly in the areas of democracy,

equality and human rights as well as the sustainable use of water resources.

Additionally in the draft of Sweden's new aid policy framework:

- The regional development cooperation strategy for the Syria crisis is mentioned specifically as a good

example of how synergies and interplay between humanitarian assistance and development

cooperation can be mutually reinforcing without undermining the specific mandates of each.

Conclusions: quite a success for the RSA, all the recommendations have been used to inform the development

strategy and the underlying theory of change, with a strong focus on resilience as well as the importance of

strengthening linkages between humanitarian and development assistance.

40 | P a g e

Somalia mid-term review RA1: Human Security and livelihoods Improved conflict resolution and reconciliation mechanisms at local and national level Increased number of people, especially young people, with jobs RA2: Health and Gender More people have access to clean drinking water and improved sanitation Improving access to quality health care, including increased number of births assisted by trained personnel and increased number of children given necessary vaccinations Fewer women subjected to gender-based violence RA3: Democracy and human rights Strengthened capacity of local and central institutions to provide basic services, justice and opportunities for democratic participation More people have the knowledge and opportunity to work for strengthening human rights Greater independence and a higher quality of journalism Strengthened empowerment of women

Overall strategic recommendations in the RSA report

1. Strengthen coherence between Result Areas and at the different layers of Somali society, ensuring portfolio contributions facilitates outcomes for the most vulnerable.

- Continued strengthening of linkages and synergies between result areas is a priority - Clearer approach on vulnerability desirable - Layers: team recognizes that even if results have been achieved is several results areas, it has

been difficult to get an overall picture of the aggregate results. Ex: not clear how local dialogue and reconciliation affect state formation process and vice versa. Efforts to fix that and reach overall performance target on going

2. Leverage political influence and programmatic resources to strengthen New Deal outcomes at sub-national and community levels

- Strategy report did not take recommendation forward.

3. Coherence between Sweden’s development and humanitarian programming needs to be strengthened. should include a shared context analysis and clearer understanding of the respective mandate and added value

- The link between development and humanitarian programmes (..) must continue to be

strengthened

- Continued support for resilience and focus on strengthening link between humanitarian assistance and development cooperation

- Nothing on shared context analysis

4. Gender, climate and environment, rights based approaches and conflict sensitivity need to be more connected throughout the portfolio and inform decision making. also within the multi-donor mechanisms

- gender and environment should be integrated into all activities - conflict sensitivity approach should be used more systematically - also will to strengthen human rights perspective across the portfolio and through multi-

donor mechanisms

5. Better understand the role of diverse actors in the complex Somali context. Regular stakeholder mapping and political analysis, along with the integration of conflict sensitivity tools in programme planning and implementation. This should be supported by the strengthening of monitoring at all layers, using innovative approaches such as remote monitoring and ‘reality check’ methodologies.

- “Sweden will continue to adopt a conflict -sensitive approach in its assistance to Somalia.”

41 | P a g e

“Sweden will explore opportunities to make regular "light" conflict analysis in seminars.” - “Continue to develop monitoring mechanisms” - BUT nothing mentioned on stakeholder analysis or on layers

Result Area One: Human security and livelihoods

1. Review and address the geographical reach and scale of the human security portfolio contributions, taking into account gender and environment perspectives;

- Big focus on gender that needs to be mainstreamed in all results areas, repeated several times

- Almost nothing on mainstreaming environment/ climate issues - And nothing on review the geographical reach and scale of portfolio contributions

2. Review human security portfolio’s alignment with objectives of strengthening conflict resolution and reconciliation mechanisms, and further explore linkages to other sub-result and result areas;

- Strengthen linkages between democracy and human rights and human security should be considered, including efforts to prevent violent extremism and radicalization, disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former soldiers

3. Leverage Sweden’s investment in multi-donor mechanisms to ensure that contributions to strengthen livelihoods are better integrated across national, sub-national, community and household layers. Ensure focus on accessing vulnerable people, with a specific focus on targeting women. Areas to explore further include facilitating remittance flows, supporting women’s economic empowerment, and addressing displacement and access to land/land rights issues that negatively impact upon livelihoods opportunities;

- Focus on targeting women is there, but no particular focus on targeting vulnerable people in general

- Nothing on leveraging multidonor mechanisms and no attention to layers, nothing on the fact that a lot of initiatives are clustered at a sub-national level (ex livelihoods portfolio)

4. Consider opportunities for investing in city planning and infrastructure initiatives as an important contribution to job creation across Somalia, taking into account improved supplies of energy as well as making sure that gender as well as environment and climate issues are included;

- Nothing mentioned in the extended strategy report

5. Invest in deeper joint analysis and explore opportunities to link programmes with humanitarian investments

- Strong will to strengthen linkages BUT nothing on the how + nothing on joint analysis

Result Area Two: Health and gender equality

1. Strengthen service delivery at sub-national and community levels to support the overall focus on health systems strengthening;

- nothing mentioned in the extended strategy report

2. Integrate a focus on preventative approaches and advocacy efforts within the health portfolio contributions and integrate gender and rights-based perspectives as key cross-cutting perspectives

- Importance of advocacy highlighted when it comes to prevent female genital mutilation (change cultural and social norms, explore role of the religious scholars)

- but nothing else

42 | P a g e

3. Scale up the integration of programmes addressing prevention and services delivery in relation to SGBV and SRHR;

- Increased focus on the access to health, including SRHR and prevention of sexual violence

against women and forced marriages – will be a top priority for the remainder of the strategy

- There is a clear synergy between health and judicial authorities. The idea is that by bringing

together medical, legal and psychosocial interventions in a model to be able to offer faster

and more efficient support

4. Incorporate innovative approaches to health systems financing at a national level to ensure greater sustainability, including public finance management and anti-corruption efforts;


5. Invest in deeper joint analysis with the humanitarian programme, and improve linkages

- WASH dominated by short-term humanitarian assistance and there is therefore a need to complement them with long term development of the sector

Result Area Three: Democracy and human rights

1. Strengthen the cohesion of the democracy portfolio contribution. Focus on the linkages between

national, sub-national and community layers to reinforce state trust and legitimacy. Achieving some ‘quick wins’ will be important through a more strategic use of smaller initiatives in the portfolio such as support to the Heritage Institute for Democracy Studies; and the Interpeace Somalia programme; complimented by the Stability Fund;

- Statebuilding and capacity development of various institutions should be complemented by a focus on local governance

- Nothing on strategic use of smaller initiatives to do so

2. As per Result Area One, leverage Sweden’s investment in multi-donor mechanisms to ensure that human rights are better integrated across national, sub-national, community and household layers;

- Will to strengthen human rights integration - But nothing on leveraging multi-donor mechanisms to do so

3. Make greater use of Sweden’s comparative advantage through a focus on rights and the protection of civilians, along with a stronger emphasis on strengthening civil society. This may include Sweden taking a more visible position on democratic strengthening and human rights in a context where the emphasis is often on stability and security;

- In both the New deal and Somalia Compact, human rights does not have a prominent place and are defined as a “mainstreaming” issue. This has resulted in restrictions on the actual human rights work in Somalia. Sweden, through its participation in the international dialogue is actively helping to highlight these problems.

4. Gender equality, women’s rights and political participation, need to be better integrated into Result Area 3. This should include the strengthening of linkages with international norms and conventions such as CEDAW and Resolution 1325 with the Somali context. This also needs to link closely with Result Areas across the portfolio.

- Sweden strive to provide opportunities for excluded groups such as women, minorities and

poor people, to participate in discussions and decisions making

- Will to strengthen support to implementation of the UNSCR 1325 and ensure a gender

perspective is integrated into legal frameworks and policies

43 | P a g e

Recommendations beyond the current strategy

1. The forthcoming strategy should be based on a deeper understanding of the risk landscape, and

support key assets within the various layers of Somali society. This shared analysis should be developed in closer, systematic, collaboration with both the Federal Government of Somalia and other development partners..

- “In the future strategy it is important to adjust the results to Somalia’s national development plan, the New deal agenda and the UN SDGs”

- Take into account global regional and sub-regional dimension - But nothing on analysing risks and conducting shared analysis

By using resilience as a central framework within the forthcoming strategy Sweden will be well placed to ensure that it moves beyond sectoral contributions, and that the strategy complements wider efforts to strengthen both statebuilding outcomes and the well-being of Somalis at all levels of society

- A broader approach in the future strategy should be considered that not only includes development cooperation but also includes peacebuilding, humanitarian aid, migration, justice and security/defence efforts. More cohesive and strategically Swedish support.

- Resilience highlighted as crucial

2. Sweden should use its comparative advantage more strategically. Sweden should consider putting further emphasis on achieving key social outcomes (including gender equality, a rights-based approach and inclusive democratic processes).

- Will to strengthen gender equality through Sweden’s participation in various forms of dialogue

- But comparative advantage does not appear to a great extent

3. While recognising the different mandates and added value of development, humanitarian and statebuilding interventions, these approaches need to be aligned with a shared understanding of the context and risk landscape and contribute to a set of coherent, mutually agreed and reinforcing strategic outcomes.

- See above: recognition that these approaches need to be aligned but nothing on doing so by

conducting a shared analysis of the context and the risks

4. Stronger emphasis on delivering stronger development outcomes at the community level. Need to understand and contribute to the right mix of absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities for resilience at each layer of Somali society.

- Layers are not discussed within the extended strategy report. Nothing on delivering more at the community level

5. Need to better capitalise on Sweden’s visibility, political commitment and image, address the complex dynamic between statebuilding, security and stabilization and incorporate clear advocacy approaches and outcomes that better integrate the work of Sida, the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other actors

- “importance of an integrated approach where political dialogue and development

cooperation go hand in hand.”

Conclusions:

The need to strengthen the dialogue with the government and development partners is highlighted especially in the areas of human rights and gender equality. But Sweden’s comparative advantage (for

44 | P a g e

instance a long history of development cooperation and Sweden’s international standing as a principled actor) is not really taken into account apart from the opportunities linked to the Swedish based Somali diaspora. There is also almost nothing on leveraging Sweden’s investments in multi-donor mechanisms

Similarly, the importance of strengthening the strategic coherence of programming has been partly understood: there is a clear commitment to strengthen linkages between results areas but almost nothing on ensuring that programmes and initiatives are mutually reinforcing at different layers of the society.

As for the cross cutting perspectives: there is a will to integrate gender and human rights as well as conflict sensitivity perspectives into all programmes and activities. Especially, there is a will to integrate a focus on gender throughout the strategy. The environment perspective on the other does not really appear

No attention to risks and the importance of building a common understanding of the context.

Will to strengthen linkages with humanitarian assistance but nothing on the “how” to do that (e.g. nothing on joint analysis of the risk landscape for instance)

Almost nothing on considering the scale and geographical reach of portfolio contributions, on targeting the most vulnerable and on delivering better results at the community and household levels (whereas it is crucial to engage more at community and household levels when it comes to health, nutrition and WASH sectors but also to strengthen human rights

45 | P a g e

South Sudan Mid- term Review

Result Area one: Increased access to health for women and children Result Area two: civil society capacity to promote human rights and reconciliation among rival ethnic groups

Recommendations in the RSA report

Knowledge of the context, the Strategy and the portfolio is limited within Sida and efforts should be made to increase understanding;

- “Sida strives to raise understanding of the context and the programs to strengthen specialist support programs and Sida's work in a difficult and fragile context.”

Progress on aligning development and humanitarian portfolio contributions should be strengthened further through joint planning and monitoring mechanisms and shared advocacy approaches to strengthen humanitarian access and protection and the achievement of Result Area outcomes;

- “The progress that has been made in the coordination of development and humanitarian aid portfolio should be further strengthened through joint planning and monitoring, and synchronization methods to influence humanitarian access and protection of civilians. This also has a direct bearing on achieving results on human rights, democracy and equality in South Sudan.”

The scope and scale of portfolio contributions should be reviewed to ensure that they are targeting the most vulnerable communities in South Sudan. This should include identifying opportunities to strengthen engagement at the sub-national level and community level;

- Nothing on that

Sweden should scale up its engagement with other donors and implementing partners to ensure that they are closely aligned with Sweden’s Results Strategy outcomes and cross-cutting perspectives;

- “Sweden should increase its engagement with other donors and implementing partners to ensure that these initiatives are in line with and contribute to the performance objectives of the strategy and the Swedish perspectives.”

Sweden is not making the most of its political, global and regional engagements to support its Result Area outcomes in South Sudan. In particular, Sweden should strengthen the strategic links between its work on gender equality, including Security Council resolution 1325 and peace and security. Further effort should also be made to strengthen the implementation of the mandate of UNMISS;

- Translated word by word in the extended strategy report

Sida Should clarify MFA guidance on avoiding support to state structures, as engagement with these is critical to strengthening access to health for women and children; and could play an important role in strengthening democracy and rights.


Key recommendations per Result Area

Result Area one:

Ensure that portfolio contributions are focused on the most vulnerable communities;


Scale up the focus on gender equality and SRHR, in particular through further engagement with

UNFPA to ensure that their midwife training programme prioritises and mainstreams these issues;

46 | P a g e

- During the third quarter of 2015, agreements were signed with UNFPA on a two-year support

for a project to strengthen and expand the training of midwives and other relevant health

care staff. The project is co-financed by Canada. Together complement efforts in other

critical areas of the sector to improve women’s health- and child health and SRHR and judged

to be of high relevance to the strategy and the needs of the country.

Clarify and strengthen partnership arrangements within the multi-donor Health Pooled Fund;

- Does not appear in the xtended strategy report

Strengthen the focus on cross-cutting perspectives, especially conflict sensitivity, climate and

environment and rights-based approaches;

- Included in the extended strategy report

Improve cross-sectoral linkages, particularly at national and community levels.

- Does not appear in the extended strategy report

Result Area two:

Increase engagement with implementing partners to ensure that the NGO Forum contributes to

outcomes at a community level and to the strengthening of rights and democracy;


Outputs from the UNDP CSAC project are modest and Sida should leverage its contributions to

encourage a transition from capacity building to a stronger focus on rights and democracy;


Scale up engagement with the media;


Strengthen the consideration of climate and environment as a key driver of conflict in South Sudan.



Future engagement with South Sudan should be based on a deepened analysis of Sweden’s

comparative advantage in the particular context, and around a theory of change, supported by

sufficient human resources;

- Involvement in South Sudan should be based on a clear theory of change that in a reasonable

manner taking into account Sweden's comparative advantages (see below) and the extent of

Swedish aid.

- Sida should be able to devote adequate staff resources so the volume of aid should be

increased to enable critical mass of staff.

Co-financed and multi-donor mechanisms should be developed further and be based on a shared

understanding of the context and. This would include aligning more closely with the UN system’s

Interim Cooperation Framework for South Sudan;

- Included in full in the extended strategy report

Increasing contributions on climate and agriculture to improve food security; as well as

strengthening governance and economic outcomes as key drivers of conflict and fragility.

47 | P a g e

- Sweden should consider increasing efforts to address climate change and agriculture in order

to improve food security.

- Therefore, Sweden should be able to support operations when there are conditions, in public

governance (Financial Governance) to increase transparency and reduce corruption and for

fundamental political reforms. Donors discuss in the spring of 2016 some form of financial

support to prevent economic collapse when a transitional government takes office

Adaptability and flexibility in the implementation of its engagement in the country, including

continued scope for development cooperation to supplement the humanitarian response and

continued priority given to strengthening resilience.

- Inclded in full in the extended strategy report

Conclusions:

- Key recommendations followed apart from targeting the most vulnerable

- Also not a good understanding of the need to engage more at the sub-national and community level,

no reference to layers

- Good understanding of the importance of humanitarian and development coherence and stress on

the priority to boost resilience

- The recommendations per Result Areas were not really followed

48 | P a g e

Sudan mid-term review

Result Area 1: prevent conflicts and achieve reconciliation in Darfur through local peace initiatives. Result Area 2: opportunities for women to assert their human rights, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, and greater respect for children’s rights. Result Area 3: Enhanced civil society capacity to promote increased respect for human rights

Key recommendations per Result Area

Result Area One

Strengthen linkages to peace process mechanisms at the sub-national and national levels, including

the national dialogue process and the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA).

- Local level not enough to address conflict: must be link with national level

Improve integration with wider sectoral initiatives to ensure that outcomes are sustainable, rights-

based and equitable and also contribute to Sweden’s cross-cutting perspectives.

- There is a need to more clearly integrate Sweden's overall perspective in the portfolio,

should particularly focus on gender equality and women's rights further strengthened.

Although environmental and climate issues should be better integrated as these are

important for poverty reduction, food security, conflict prevention and economic growth in

the Sudanese context

Result Area Two

Contributions to Unicef’s child protection programme do not adequately contribute to strengthening

women’s rights. Sweden needs to leverage its contribution with Unicef and/or diversify its

contributions to meet these outcomes.


Strengthen linkages with Sweden’s global and regional engagements on gender equality and

women’s rights.

- “opportunities to strengthen synergies with the global and regional programmes, as well as

Sweden's international political commitment to gender equality to achieve better results and

goal achievement”

Linkages with Sweden’s humanitarian portfolio, in particular support to UNOCHA on gender

mainstreaming, as well as contributions to Save the Children, UNHCR and the CHF should be

strengthened

- OCHA, Save the Children and UNHCR do not appear but will to strengthen linkages with

humanitarian action

Result Area Three

Ensure close engagement with the EU to ensure that capacity building support for CSOs incorporates

focus on human rights and democracy, rather than just improved service provision.

- “support for the EU's fund for support to civil society , where efforts related to

democratization and human rights , including women's rights , receive special focus”

49 | P a g e

Strengthen links with the DCPSF through capacity building initiatives for CSOs on peace-building, as

well as Sweden’s humanitarian portfolio and global programmes which support Save the Children to

strengthen child protection policy and mechanisms.

- Continue support to the multi-donor UNDP -led DCPSF Fund (Darfur Community Peace and

Stability Fund).

Strengthen engagement at the national and sub-national levels

- Yes: emphasis on risk of working at national level


1. Further engagement in Sudan should be based on a clear theory of change that adequately takes account of

Sweden’s comparative advantage and the scale of Sweden’s contribution. Clarify the balance of meeting

strategic political aims and achieving effective development outcomes, and strengthen the coherence between

these objectives.

“Involvement in Sudan should be based on a clear theory of change that in a reasonable manner takes

into account Sweden's comparative advantages and the extent of Swedish aid”

2. A future engagement in Sudan also needs to consider implementing partners’ operational limitations.

greater engagement with implementing partners to ensure that contributions effectively help achieve

good results within each area and permeated Swedish priorities.

3. Consideration should be given to increasing engagement with national and sub-national governance

structures. further consider the threats and opportunities that direct and/or indirect engagement entails;

both for itself but also for its implementing partners.

“A possible new strategy should take into account the significant risks associated with the extremely

complex environment for aid agencies, including limited opportunities for field visits for program

monitoring and active dialogue with partners”

4. The development of a new strategy for Sudan should be based on a rigorous assessment of conflict areas,

as well as other peripheral areas suffering from chronic under-investment

“Strategy Implementation in countries where context characterized by political and economic

unpredictability and security challenges for development assistance requires the presence on site of

several broadcast. Country Knowledge regarding Sudan at Sida in Stockholm also needs to be

improved.”

5. A further engagement in Sudan could entail explicitly exploring new areas which are in line with Sweden’s

comparative advantage. This may include further engagement in addressing environmental and climate

change issues, gender equality and women’s political and economic participation, strengthening livelihood

opportunities (including WEE), and a further emphasis on strengthening the human rights perspective through

a focus on governance, rule of law and legislative reform. However, rather than developing additional results

areas, there is significant opportunity to address many of the identified opportunities and gaps by

strengthening the mainstreaming of Sweden’s cross-cutting perspectives.

A possible new strategy should be based on areas where Sweden can create added value. Swedish

value is found to be advantageous in gender equality, with a focus on women / girls empowerment,

the implementation of UN Resolution 1325, SRHR, conflict and reconciliation, and in the field of

democracy and human rights. Furthermore, Sudan has several environmental and climate challenges,

50 | P a g e

including related to soil degradation and water shortages. Sweden could possibly contribute to this

work with direct relevance also for economic development, gender equality and conflict prevention.

The areas above should be considered and prioritized in connection with the basis for a new well-

focused strategy is developed.

Conclusions:

- RSA helped to highlight the lack of knowledge of Sudan: “In view of the complex context in Sudan Sida

should consider to ensure that the country knowledge is satisfactory. Today, there is limited

understanding of the context beyond the immediate officers responsible for the programs”.

- Also a will to strengthen synergies between humanitarian and development efforts through in-depth

joint analysis and planning.

- On overall recommendations from the RSA were really taken into account and were followed

51 | P a g e

Kenya operationalization plan RA1: Environment RA2: Human rights, democracy RA3: Better opportunities for poor people And 2 perspectives: poverty reduction and human rights (+ cross cutting perspectives on gender, conflict sensitivity and climate and environment)

Process:

The operationalization process has been a joint effort within the Embassy of Sweden in Nairobi with support from the Africa Department, the Methods Department and the Chief Economist team at Sida.

A portfolio analysis was developed as part of the preparations for the operationalization work, also feeding into the systems’ analysis workshop led by the OECD/DAC. The workshop was followed up by an internal workshop focusing on the theory of change that was held on 12 April.

A core team of Kenya section staff led the process of drafting the plan with input from the whole section as well as thematic advisors at Sida.

Recommendations in the RSA report and how they were used in the OP

1. Recognising Sweden’s relatively limited contribution to improving the well-being of poor people

within the overall Kenyan context, strengthen dialogue and linkages with government and other

development cooperation partners to leverage the potential impact of Sweden’s new Results

Strategy for Kenya;

- This appears in the OP plan: ‘Sweden is one of the stakeholders in the EU Joint

Programming. In addition, Sweden will continue to be part of the overall coordination

between development partners in the Development Partners’ Group (DPG) as well as with

the Government of Kenya in the Aid Effectiveness Group (AEG)’.

- “Sweden will strive to contribute to effective development cooperation to the extent

possible, one milestone being the second High-Level Meeting of the Global Partnership for

Effective Development Cooperation (HLM2 GPEDC) taking place in Nairobi later on in 2016.”

- RA1: programmes will align with national strategies (ex: National Climate Change Response)

+ collaboration will be strengthen with local government actors within the devolution

process + since WB and AFDB handle sector reform and capacity building then Sweden will

prioritise advocacy work

- RA2: “GoK has the biggest role in coordination of both national and county efforts in areas

needing extensive capacity building” + also intends ro work with private sector and civil

society

2. Undertake a conflict sensitivity analysis of the portfolio to ensure that the strategy contributes to

Sweden’s cross-cutting perspective in this area;

- RA1 “Sweden intends to support fair and transparent natural resources management related

to water and land as a means to preventing conflicts”

- RA1.4: support county and national policy reforms, strengthen capacity and governance and

increase access to water and sanitation for the most marginalised. “Conflict sensitivity will be

mainstreamed in the operations”

52 | P a g e

3. Invest in further research to better understand the contribution of social capital to poor people’s

overall well-being in Kenya. This should include a better understanding of the role of clan and chiefly

systems and their impact upon gender equality and conflict resolution and analysis of the

contribution that strengthening social assets could make to achieving Result Area outcomes;

- Not mentioned in the OP

4. Strengthen the linkages with, and contribution of, Sweden’s regional and global programmes to the

Results Strategy, in particular ensuring that these programmes contribute to Result outcomes at

County and community levels;

- RA1 “Synergies with regional and global programmes, in water resources and agriculture, will

be explored further” + same with r and g programmes on climate change exist and resilience

- Also mentioned for RA2 and RA3

5. Consider ways in which Sweden’s global political engagements, especially with regard to gender

equality and peacebuilding are incorporated into the Kenya portfolio, including, for instance Sweden’s

engagement with and support for Security Council Resolution 1325.

- Slightly appears in RA2.4 “Sweden intends to (..) involving women in peace and security

issues”. But not really developed.

Result Areas

1. Recognising the significant scope and level of investment in Result Area two, undertake further

prioritisation of programmes in Result Area two and/or ensure that the investments in this Result

Area are making a strategic contribution to outcomes at all levels for Result Areas one and three;

- Nothing on prioritisation of programmes in the OP

2. Within each Result Area, strengthen the linkages between programmes at national, County and

community levels, recognising the strategic opportunities that may exist with regard to Kenya’s

devolution process;

- Devolution is described as an opportunity several times in the OP. RA1: “Sweden intends to

primarily focus interventions in institutions and actors operating at the 47

county/community level”. RA2: “the on-going devolution process constitutes an opportunity

for better and equal access to services” as well as accountability and participation

- “actions at different levels of the society will be required”

3. Ensure that the focus on rights and gender equality in Result Area two and the corresponding

contributions also incorporate environmental and gender rights to improve, for instance, access to

renewal energy and environmental services and productive employment and decent working

conditions for women and girls.

- RA1: “gender aspects and women economic empowerment will be prioritised since women

are the primary provider of food water and energy at household and community level”

Portfolio contributions

1. Following further investigation and validation, develop an exit strategy for the five programmes that

do not appear to be making a significant contribution to the overall Kenya context or the

achievement of Sweden’s Results under the new Strategy, as detailed on page 6 of this report;

- Nothing specific on this

53 | P a g e

2. Undertake further analysis of 22 programmes, or those that are not highlighted on page 8 of this

report, to determine the extent to which these contributions are strategic and are making a ‘catalytic’

contribution to Sweden’s Results Strategy for Kenya;

- “an attempt will be made at re-engineering some of the existing contributions of the

portfolio so as to strengthen the environmental focus” RA1

- “The Kenya section will actively look into reducing the total number of contributions of the

portfolio”

3. Strengthen stakeholder mapping with regard to individual portfolio contributions to better

understand the influence of a wide range of stakeholders, at different levels of society, and their

impact on the effectiveness of these contributions in achieving stated outcomes;

- RA1 : “commission a political economy study to pin down who exerts influence.(..) Such

a study would include a mapping of other donors’ activities, approaches and modalities”

- RA3 analysis needed to identify “other partners in this area”

Ex “3.2 Interest in productive employment by both the local and Swedish private sector

is seen as good opportunity fo Sweden to leverage”

4. Further develop the opportunities identified in Table 2 of this report, with an emphasis on ensuring

that these opportunities contribute to the strengthening or scaling up of existing contributions and

are integrated at different layers of Kenyan society;

5. Systematically make us of clear criteria to prioritise portfolio contributions within each Result Area

and across the Strategy as a whole. Portfolio contributions should be ranked according to the following elements:

a. The extent to which the programmes made a contribution both across Result Areas and at

different layers of Kenyan society;

- “all new contributions should aim at delivering on more than one result”

- “pro-active measures to strengthen the synergies with focus areas and across focus

areas”

b. Their contribution to Sweden’s Programme Development Goals of poverty and rights and

cross-cutting perspectives – climate and environment, conflict sensitivity and gender equality

and women’s rights, and;

- “a stronger and more systematic consideration on multidimensional poverty, 2

perspectives (rights and poverty) and three thematic perspectives

c. Strategic linkages to Sweden’s global and regional initiatives and to the contributions of

other development cooperation partners.

- Not in the set of criteria

d. The extent to which the geographical coverage of programmes corresponds with areas of high vulnerability within Kenya. O Not in the set of criteria

Other things coming from the RSA report

- Risks highlighted in RSA (governance, corruption and bureaucracy) were also highlighted in the

OP

- Use of the term “capital” to show how RA1 can help strengthening economic, natural and

political capitals

- Use of guarantees prescribed in the RSA workshop report figures in the OP: “the guarantee

instrument is foreseen to be used primarily in these areas which will carry a minimal cost for the

country delegation”. ex under RA1.3: “in order to mobilise more private capital, the use of

Swedish guarantees could be instrumental”

54 | P a g e

- Clear focus on the most vulnerable (mostly women and youth) and on leaving no one behind

Conclusions:

Main recommendations have been taken into account and followed (ie need to strengthen dialogue and linkages with government and other cooperation partners, strengthen linkages with Sweden’s regional and global programmes, undertake a conflict sensitivity analysis of the portfolio). But some are missing: better understand the role of social capital, adapt the geographical coverage of programmes to areas of high vulnerability etc.

55 | P a g e

Ethiopia operationalization plan

1. A better environment, limited climate impact and greater resilience to climate change and natural disasters

1.1 Strengthened management of natural resources 1.2 Improved capacity among public institutions and other actors at national and local level 1.3 Increased production of and improved access to renewable energy

2. Strengthened democracy, gender equality and greater respect for human rights

2.1 Strengthened rule of law 2.2 Strengthened democratic accountability and transparency at local level 2.3 Strengthened capacity of civil society 2.4 Increased respect for and access to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR)

3. Better opportunities and tools to enable poor people to improve their living conditions

3.1 Improved opportunities for productive employment with decent working conditions, particularly for women and young people 3.2 Sustainable food security with particular focus on resilient agriculture 3.3 A more favourable business climate and strengthening institutions 3.4 Better access to social protection for people living in poverty

General recommendations in the RSA

1. Emphasising the complementarity of the result areas and develop inter-disciplinary programming

making;

- Complementarity emphasised throughout the report (ex; climate resilience needs to be

addressed through all the result areas in synergies)

- “Current analysis shows that donor engagement in agricultural development programs in

Ethiopia is massive, while agricultural development not necessarily is as critical to increased

food security as other strategies for transformation, job creation, natural resource

management and overall capacity building”

2. Make strategic use of Sweden’s programme development goals of poverty focus and rights, as well as the cross-cutting perspectives of gender equality, conflict sensitivity, and climate and environment to further strengthen synergies within and between results areas;

- Appears strongly throughout the OP report: always a reference to x-cutting synergies as well as poverty and rights in every RA

- Ex: “There is a possibility to build on a country wide assessment looking into how women are affected by climate change conducted by UEWCA with the technical support from SMHI, needs to be looked further into”

3. Giving due attention to human rights issues and/or geographical targeting of vulnerable groups;

- Will to further explore how the most vulnerable can be integrated in the Swedish

programming: “Following the basic policy of the SDGs of leaving no one behind and including

also the most vulnerable populations in development interventions, will be addressed

through assessing all programs contribution in reaching them. The basic assumption is that

vulnerable groups can be found in all populations and geographical areas and that these

should be identified and targeted in an integrated way rather than through separate

programs for e.g. pastoralists.”

- Human rights: “The motives and advantages as well as risks and trade-offs underpinning

strategic decisions on funding of public institutions will be carefully assessed and

56 | P a g e

documented. This is important to keep a balanced portfolio that allows for integrity

especially in relation to governance/democracy/human rights issues ”

- Coherence political and development agenda, in regards to Human Rights, ex RA1: “Sensitive

Human Rights issues will be dealt with in collaboration with the political section at the

embassy using the political dialogue in a structured way through consistent, smart and

unified messaging in all encounters with decision makers and other stake holders”

4. Invest in further analysis of policy coherence, and how this translates down to the regional level in relation to political will and capacity to implement, giving due attention to differences between regions;

- “The regional level is central for translating policy into practice” : will to give further

attention to regional level and analyse differences between regions

- needs further analysis on national policy work and how that is implemented at national, sub-

national and community levels – Amira

5. Make use of existing tools and maps to strengthen analysis around targeting of vulnerable areas and groups;

- will to further explore how the most vulnerable can be integrated in the Swedish

programming (though nothing on the tools)

6. Invest in further joint analysis and planning with the humanitarian assistance unit, in relation to targeting root causes, protection concerns and rights, targeting of vulnerable areas and marginalised groups, as well as addressing systems strengthening needs to ensure more effective preparedness, response, and overall reduction of humanitarian needs.

- “The work to ensure contribution to resilience and addressing the most vulnerable should be done in close collaboration between development and humanitarian actors in Ethiopia and at Sida HQ”

- But on overall the report “Lacks synergies with humanitarian assistance, especially in relation to access, rights & participation in relation to natural resource management & land and property governance” (Amira). The only “entry points” for development and humanitarian co-operation are resilience and food security

- Nothing on joint-planning and analysis

7. Strengthen the linkages with Sweden’s regional and global programmes to the Results Strategy, in

particular ensuring that these programmes contribute to Result outcomes at County and community

levels;

- Appears sometimes, ex RA 1.2 “improved capacity among public institutions” : “there are a

number of global/regional programmes with bearing on Ethiopia that will be important to

align and build on”

- Example “synergies with Power Africa and other regional and global programs” will be

explore in RA 1.3

8. Undertake a conflict sensitivity analysis of the portfolio and invest in further stakeholder analysis at

national, regional and community levels to improve overall effectiveness and partnerships

- STAKEHOLDER: “Further mapping of actors and interventions needed” for new areas of

interventions (such as renewable energy) is needed

- CONFLICT: Next step: ‘Phase II of the Conflict Sensitivity study by the Sida Helpdesk to inform

all programming but especially programs in conflict affected/potential areas.’

57 | P a g e

9. Consider Sweden’s global and context specific political engagements, especially in regards to gender

equality and environment/climate, and engage other institutional donors and stakeholders in

dialogue in regards to prioritised areas of intervention and programming opportunities.

- Yes, example: In regards to women/climate: “The embassy will also explore possibilities for

pooling of resources with Norway and Austria.”

Also with DFID: “It should be noted that DFID is intending a program to address the issues of

regulation which may be a way for Sweden to support a more flexible and accessible market

for private actors in renewable energy”

Result Area 1: environment, limited climate impact and greater resilience

1. Invest in further analysis in regards to emerging opportunities and challenges, with emphasis on

coherence between existing policy frameworks including the Climate Resilient Green Economy

Strategy (CRGE) and land tenure policies;

- “the embassies ambition is to support the implementation of the CRGE”

- Opportunities: “Better data and statistics (incl. use of new technology)

Capacity building as identified by government (CRGE implementation, MRV, Environmental &

social safeguards, environmental governance, climate science, knowledge management)

Increased use of environmental impact assessments and management response to EIA

Capacity building of national disaster agency

Capacity building of environmental public institutions.” this is coming directly from the RSA

report

2. Strengthen understanding of how policies are translated and implemented at regional level, with

due attention given to differences between regions;

- good understanding that regional level is central. “Strong need to understand geographical

differences, particularities and opportunities”

- Ex of programme: “considering to support public institutions at regional level through the

Sustainable Land Management Project (SLMP) implemented by the World Bank.”

3. Make use of strong synergies with result areas 2 and 3 to develop joint- and integrated programming,

with special emphasis on synergies between results 1.3 and 3.3 (enabling private sector development

to contribute strongly towards improving access to renewable energy), and synergies between results

1.1, 1.2, 2.2, and 3.3 to strengthen links between sustainable agriculture, natural resource

management and capacity building for environmental sustainability.

- on 1.3 and 3.3: Engaging with the private sector for off-grid solutions

- 1.1: “WB/GoE program will also contribute to the result 1.2 as well as 3.3”

- 1.2: “Synergies with result 2.2. in relation to transparency and accountability on land issues

and as well as result 3.2. resilient agriculture and food security can be developed”

4. Consider merging result 1.1 and 1.2;

- Does not appear

5. Leverage investments in result area 1 as an acceptable ‘entry-point’ for dialogue with the government

on more sensitive issues related to rights, democracy strengthening and gender equality.

58 | P a g e

- “Finding creative entry points that allow for a less political interpretation as well as weighing

direct and indirect result from synergies in and between the different result areas are other

ways that will be used to mitigate risks.”

6. Strengthen analysis on opportunities to mainstream Sweden’s programme development priorities of

poverty and rights, as well as the cross-cutting perspectives of gender equality and conflict sensitivity.

- “Land use and rights issues are potential sources of conflict between different stakeholders

as well as between different ethnic groups and needs to be carefully analysed and

addressed”

- “women are often more vulnerable and more affected by (climate change, natural disasters).

It is therefore important that all efforts in this area takes into account existing structures and

plans how inequality can be overcome”

7. Invest in further analysis around opportunities to build coherence with humanitarian action and

addressing root causes of vulnerability (ie strengthening livelihood opportunities and assets of

marginalised communities, and strengthening early warning and preparedness);

- “Resilience building and food security are other obvious synergy areas where communication

and collaboration with the humanitarian programs and actors can contribute to enhance the

results.”

Result Area 2: democracy, gender equality, human rights

1. Ensure that result area 2 can be used strategically to achieve catalytic results in result areas 1 and 3,

by investing in joint programming and prioritising issues related to the other result areas;

- “Further synergies with RA3 should be explored on possibilities for increased transparency,

participation, inclusiveness and monitoring in relation to pastoralists’ communities

livelihoods development and rights and with RA1 in relation to natural resources

management”

- “there are two very interesting programs proposed by UNFPA that address the SRHR

situation for drought affected pastoralist youth in Somali, Afar and Oromia region and

another program for equitable Access to SRHR in three of the emerging regions and other

vulnerable groups in areas such as Addis Abeba slum areas”

2. Invest in further research to better understand the contribution of social capital to poor people’s overall well-being in Ethiopia.

- Not included in the OP

3. Ensure that further prioritisation of existing contributions and identified opportunities acknowledges

the need for further analysis around targeting of vulnerability and ensuring strong vertical linkages

between societal layers;

- Acknowledgement of need to target vulnerable + strong linkages but nothing on further

analysis

4. Conduct further mapping of Swedish engagements in relation to democracy, human rights and

gender equality in the Ethiopian context which falls outside of the bilateral strategy, and ensure

coherence in messaging and advocacy efforts to ensure a conflict sensitive approach and avoid doing

harm;

59 | P a g e

- “The political dialogue outside the development cooperation program will be an important

way to enhance the results of the development cooperation”

5. Invest in further joint analysis with the humanitarian programme.

- Not included in the OP

Other recommendations coming from RSA: -partnerships : UNODC, Centre for human rights, ilo, UNWOMEN,

+work with media on issues such as Human Rights and the constitution and women’s political participation,

improved journalist /media education at university, community radio and strengthened complaints

mechanisms in relation to different sectors

Result Area 3: Better opportunities to improve poor people’s living conditions

1. Strengthen synergies with result area 1 and 2 with special emphasis on linkages with results 2.1 and

2.2 to ensure rule of law, transparency and accountability for increased employment opportunities,

decent working conditions and a favourable business climate;

- Strong interrelation within ra3 and with RA1 and 2 “food security and resilient agriculture

derive from a number of factors such as employment, possibilities for diversification of

livelihoods, land management, markets for the poor and value chain improvement as well as

participation in decision making and having voice.”

2. Explore viable programming options in relation to result 3.4 (access to social protection), with

particular emphasis developing integrated programming around livelihood diversification and asset

strengthening, as well as index insurance solutions and micro insurance, with strong programmatic

synergies with results 3.2 2.2, 1.1 and 1.2, as well as with humanitarian programming;

- Not really explored

3. Invest in further analysis and ensure that aspects related to geographical coverage and balance in

regards to targeting vulnerable communities;

- Yes

- work in micro insurance to be developed

4. Strengthen aspects related to women’s economic empowerment throughout the private sector

development portfolio and ensure coherence with overall mainstreaming of gender equality;

- Yes ex: “the intervention with ILO and H&M is expected to make employment conditions

more decent for a large and growing number of women in Ethiopia”

5. Invest in further dialogue and joint analysis with the humanitarian community in regards to

addressing food insecurity and livelihood strengthening, as well as in relation to social protection,

and use Sweden’s political arm to further strengthen advocacy efforts on this and other issues;

- Yes for dialogue but nothing on joint analysis

Conclusions: the RSA recommendations have been used and taken into account.

- The OP report highlights synergies between results areas and the need for engaging more at

regional/ community level as well as the need to target the most vulnerable.

60 | P a g e

- Good understanding of Sweden’s comparative advantage when it comes to work in sensitive

areas such as human rights (“Sensitive Human Rights issues will be dealt with in collaboration

with the political section at the embassy using the political dialogue in a structured way

through consistent, smart and unified messaging in all encounters with decision makers and

other stake holders”)

- The OP also quotes emerging opportunities, partnerships and contributions explored during

the RSA workshop.

- But on the negative side, coherence with humanitarian assistance is highlighted but not

explored sufficiently (eg nothing on joint analysis and planning and big focus on

environmental resilience and food security)

- The portfolio analysis overview also shows that the RSA has allowed a mapping of

contributions per layers (using the layers of the RSA) and per regions

61 | P a g e

Annex III – Sweden’s post-2015 commitments

International agreements:

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 –March 2015

Agenda 2030, SDGs – September 2015

Addis Ababa Action Agenda – Financing for development – July 2015

Stockholm Declaration on Addressing Fragility and Building Peace in a Changing World – April 2016

SG’s call at the WHS – Core responsibilities + Sweden’s national commitments – May 2016

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 – March 2015.

Can be found here: http://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf

The Sendai Framework is the successor instrument to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005-2015: Building the

Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. It has a:

- strong emphasis on disaster risk management as opposed to disaster management - a goal focused on preventing new risk, reducing existing risk and strengthening resilience

The Sendai Framework also articulates the following: the need for improved understanding of disaster risk in all

its dimensions of exposure, vulnerability and hazard characteristics; the strengthening of disaster risk

governance, including national platforms; preparedness to “Build Back Better”; mobilization of risk-sensitive

investment to avoid the creation of new risk; resilience of health infrastructure, cultural heritage and work-

places; strengthening of international cooperation and global partnership, and risk-informed donor policies and

programs, including financial support and loans from international financial institutions

It is urgent and critical to anticipate, plan for and reduce disaster risk in order to more effectively protect persons, communities and countries, their livelihoods, health, cultural heritage, socioeconomic assets and ecosystems, and thus strengthen their resilience.

More dedicated action needs to be focused on tackling underlying disaster risk drivers, such as the consequences of poverty and inequality, climate change and variability, unplanned and rapid urbanization, poor land management and compounding factors such as demographic change, weak institutional arrangements, non-risk-informed policies

Disaster risk reduction and management depends on coordination mechanisms within and across sectors and with relevant stakeholders at all levels, it is necessary to empower local authorities and local communities to reduce disaster risk, including through resources, incentives and decision-making responsibilities

Disaster risk reduction requires a multi-hazard approach and inclusive risk-informed decision-making

PRIORITIES FOR ACTION

Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk.

- by periodically assessing disaster risks, vulnerability, capacity, exposure, hazard characteristics and their possible

sequential effects at the relevant social and spatial scale on ecosystems, in line with national circumstances

- To build the knowledge of government officials at all levels, civil society, communities and volunteers, as well as

the private sector, through sharing experiences, lessons learned, good practices and training

Priority 2: Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk.

- foster collaboration and partnership across mechanisms and institutions

Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience.

- To promote coherence across systems, sectors and organizations related to sustainable development and to

disaster risk reduction in their policies, plans, programmes and processes

http://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf

62 | P a g e

Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better”in recovery,

rehabilitation and reconstruction

Agenda 2030, SDGs – September 2015

Risk inform analysis: ‘reduce the exposure and vulnerability (of the poor) to climate-related extreme events and

other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters’ (goal 1 - end poverty) – to achieve that there is a

need to better understand environmental risks faced by the most vulnerable

Health: ‘Strengthen the capacity of all countries, in particular developing countries, for early warning risk

reduction and management of national and global health risks’ (goal 3)

Climate: “Improve institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and

early warning” - early warning requires a better assessment of the risks (goal 13)

Economy: “By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and

substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by

disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable

situations” + “develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-

2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels” (goal 11)

Development- humanitarian coherence: Multi-stakeholders partnerships: “Enhance the global partnership for

sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge,

expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals

in all countries, in particular developing countries” (goal 17)

“Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to States

where the need is greatest, in particular least developed countries, African countries, small island developing

States and landlocked developing countries” (goal 10) – in other words focus on the most vulnerable areas where

almost only humanitarians operate

Goal 2 (Zero hunger), goal 3 (Good health and well-being), Goal 6 (Ensure access to water and sanitation for all),

goal 11 (Sustainable cities and communities) and Goal 16 (Promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies) are also

relevant as they concern both humanitarians and development actors.

Addis Ababa Action Agenda – Financing for development – July 2015

Can be found here: http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/AAAA_Outcome.pdf

We reaffirm that achieving gender equality, empowering all women and girls, and the full realization of their

human rights are essential to achieving sustained, inclusive, and equitable economic growth and sustainable

development

We recognize that investing in children and youth is critical to achieving inclusive, equitable and sustainable

development for present and future generations, and we recognize the need to support countries that face

particular challenges to make the requisite investments in this area

We recognize the importance of addressing the diverse needs and challenges faced by countries in special

situations, in particular African countries, least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries

(LLDCs) and small island developing States (SIDS), as well as the specific challenges facing middle-income

countries (MICs).

The Addis Ababa Action Agenda urges to:

http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/AAAA_Outcome.pdf

63 | P a g e

Delivering social protection and essential public services for all (with a focus on vulnerable groups)

Scaling up efforts to end hunger and malnutrition ; ensure food security, enable rural people living in poverty to

improve their food security and nutrition, raise their incomes, and strengthen their resilience

Promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization : economic diversification, value addition

Generating full employment and decent work, promoting MSMEs : access to finance, access to credit

Protecting our ecosystems : natural resources, build resilience, reduce pollution, combat climate change

desertification etc.

Promoting peaceful and inclusive societies ; rule of law, human rights, freedoms, access to justice systems

ACTIONS AREAS

Domestic public resources : strengthen effective use of resources, good governance at all level, promote social

inclusion, access to decision making processes

Improve financing of sustainable infrastructure, energy, agriculture industrialization, science, tech and innovation

We therefore commit to scale up international cooperation to strengthen capacities of municipalities and other

local authorities. We will support cities and local authorities of developing countries, particularly in LDCs and

SIDS, in implementing resilient and environmentally sound infrastructure, including energy, transport, water and

sanitation, and sustainable and resilient buildings using local materials

Domestic and international private business and finance

We engage public sector to engage as partner in the development process and invest in critical areas + we will

foster a dynamic and well-functioning business sector + improve access for women + develop capital markets and

FDI + private public partnerships and investments

International development cooperation

We recognize that we share common goals and common ambitions to strengthen international development

cooperation and maximize its effectiveness, transparency, impact and results. In this regard, we welcome the

progress achieved in elaborating the principles that apply to our respective efforts to increase the impact of our

cooperation. We will continue to strengthen our dialogue to enhance our common understanding and improve

knowledge sharing.

We will promote country ownership, results orientation and strengthen country systems, use programme-based

approaches where appropriate, strengthen partnerships for development, reduce transaction costs, and increase

transparency and mutual accountability

We encourage consideration of climate and disaster resilience in development financing to ensure the

sustainability of development results. We recognize that well-designed actions can produce multiple local and

global benefits, including those related to climate change. We commit to invest in efforts to strengthen the

capacity of national and local actors to manage and finance disaster risk

Development finance can contribute to reducing social, environmental and economic vulnerabilities and enable

countries to prevent or combat situations of chronic crisis related to conflicts or natural disasters. We recognize

the need for coherence of developmental and humanitarian finance to ensure more timely, comprehensive,

appropriate and cost-effective approaches to the management and mitigation of natural disasters and complex

emergencies. We commit to promoting innovative financing mechanisms to allow countries to better prevent

and manage risks and develop mitigation plans. We will invest in efforts to strengthen the capacity of national

and local actors to manage and finance disaster risk reduction, and to enable countries to draw efficiently and

effectively on international assistance when needed. We take note of the establishment of the Secretary-

General’s High-level Panel on Humanitarian Financing and the World Humanitarian Summit to be held in Istanbul,

Turkey from 26 to 27 May 2016.

We also recognize the need to devise methodologies to better account for the complex and diverse realities of

MICs. We also encourage MDBs to explore ways to ensure that their assistance best addresses the opportunities

and challenges presented by the diverse circumstances of MICs. We also underscore the importance of risk

mitigation mechanisms, including through MIGA

64 | P a g e

We recognize that genuine, effective and durable multi-stakeholder partnerships can play an important role in

advancing sustainable development. We will encourage and promote such partnerships to support country-

driven priorities and strategies, building on lessons learned and available expertise. We further recognize that

partnerships are effective instruments for mobilizing human and financial resources, expertise, technology and

knowledge

Paris Agreement – December 2015

Can be found here: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

Emphasizing the enduring benefits of ambitious and early action, including major reductions in the cost of future

mitigation and adaptation efforts

Agreeing to uphold and promote regional and international cooperation in order to mobilize stronger and more

ambitious climate action by all Parties and non-Party stakeholders, including civil society, the private sector,

financial institutions, cities and other subnational authorities, local communities and indigenous peoples

SG’s call WHS – CORE RESPONSIBILITIES –May 2016

Humanitarian organizations are frustrated that they are expected to do more and to stay longer

International aid architecture: seen as outdated and resistant to change, fragmented and uncommitted to

working collaboratively

Change that promotes self-reliance rather than perpetuating dependence on international assistance.

Change that ushers in a new model of how Governments, local communities, the private sector and aid

organizations work together for people in crisis.

Core responsibility one: political leadership to prevent and end conflicts

Health systems and water infrastructure are destroyed and disease spreads. Agriculture is interrupted and food

stocks depleted, and endemic hunger, malnutrition and child stunting follow. Schools are destroyed, education

ceases and children fall prey to abuse, trafficking and forced recruitment. Women are stripped of their rights and

deliberately targeted. People flee their homes in the millions, moving from town to town, across seas and over

borders. The effects last for generations: widespread fear, distrust and tensions that run along ethnic, religious or

political lines. Countries coming out of prolonged civil war are never the same, their social and political fabric

changed forever.

A shift from perpetual crisis management towards effectively managing prevention and early action is urgently

needed. the United Nations is undergoing a series of transformations to make early warning, prevention and

conflict resolution greater priorities.

Act early -> Invest in risk analysis and act on findings: National Governments and regional and international

organizations should increase their capacity to analyse risks and monitor deteriorating situations. Violations of

human rights and violence against civilians, political exclusion, judicial bias, socioeconomic marginalization,

corruption and an influx of arms can be key indicators for political tension, risk of violence or the outbreak or

relapse of conflict.

Invest in stability -> To be most effective, early action must take place within an expanded range of investments

and time horizons, enabling us to work on more than one crisis at a time, sustain engagement before and after a

crisis peaks and invest in stability over longer time frames.

Our tools and mechanisms need to be reoriented to simultaneously work on preventing and responding to

crises effectively and sustainably. Successful prevention starts long before crisis situations deteriorate or serious

violations of human rights and humanitarian law are committed.

There also needs to be a shift from “media headline” funding to “stability investment”. Financing should be

equitable and based on risk analysis, not simply on geopolitical interests. It needs to be predictable, long-term

and evidence-based.

Develop solutions with and for people: Leaders should promote and require the inclusion of women and

women’s groups into decision-making at all levels. national and local governments to establish platforms with

https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

65 | P a g e

civil society that enable men and women of all ages, religions and ethnicities to voice opinions, engage and work

together on civic issues.

Core responsibility three: leave no one behind

requires reaching everyone in situations of conflict, disaster, vulnerability and risk.

One of the most visible consequences of conflict, violence and disasters has been the mass displacement of

people within countries or across borders, often for protracted periods. Every day in 2014, conflicts and violence

forced approximately 42,500 people to flee their homes and seek safety either internally or across borders

2030 Agenda makes it imperative that every country commit to collecting comprehensive data and analysis to

better identify, prioritize and track the progress of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups towards the

Sustainable Development Goals

access to basic services, labour markets, education, durable housing, livelihoods and other opportunities and

secure land tenure

Humanitarian and development actors need to work collaboratively across silos and mandates to implement

plans with a clear and measurable collective outcome

Core responsibility four: change people’s lives — from delivering aid to ending need

Ending need requires the reinforcement of local systems, the anticipation of crises and transcendence of the

humanitarian-development divide

moving beyond short-term, supply-driven response efforts towards demand-driven outcomes that reduce need

and vulnerability. To achieve that, international providers will need to set aside such artificial institutional labels

as “development” or “humanitarian”, working together over multi-year time frames

too often, international assistance still works in traditional ways, focused on the delivery of individual projects

rather than bringing together expertise to deliver more strategic outcomes. We operate in silos created by

mandates and financial structures rather than towards collective outcomes by leveraging comparative

advantage. based on complementarity, greater levels of interoperability and achieving sustainable, collective

outcomes rather than the coordination of individual projects and activities

Reinforce, do not replace, national and local systems

International engagement should be based on trust and a good understanding of existing response capacity and

critical gaps, to arrive at a clear assessment of comparative advantage and complementarity with national and

local efforts.

International actors must work together and sustainably, where necessary over multi-year time frames, to build

and strengthen national and local response capacity. This will respect people’s dignity and desire to be resilient,

reduce dependency on foreign assistance and prevent longer-term, costly international engagements.

Place people at the centre: build community resilience

Any effort to reduce the vulnerability of people and strengthen their resilience must begin at the local level, with

national and international efforts building on local expertise, leadership and capacities. Affected people must be

consistently engaged and involved in decision-making, ensuring participation by women at all levels. Legitimate

representatives of communities should be systematically placed at the leadership level in every context. People

must also be able to influence decisions about how their needs are met and rely upon all actors to deliver

predictably and transparently.

115. International assistance and protection providers need to understand what is truly needed by affected

people and communities and how to best support preparedness, positive coping strategies and recovery. This

requires a shift in mind-set away from focusing on what “we” can offer towards what people need and want.

International actors should increasingly ask themselves what they can do to add value to what people and

communities are already doing. That requires a deep and respectful engagement with local people, institutions,

conditions and issues and will greatly add to international aid being relevant and complementary to local and

national capacities, even in complex and rapidly changing contexts.

Resilience and self-reliance should underpin the delivery of assistance and risk management processes.

66 | P a g e

Anticipate, do not wait, for crises

- Invest in data and risk analysis Data and joint analysis must become the bedrock of our action. They are the

starting point for moving from a supply-driven approach to one informed by the greatest risks and the needs of

the most vulnerable

Governments and sub-regional, regional and international actors need to dedicate significant financial and

human resource capacity towards collecting data and monitoring and analysing risk before, during and after

crises

Deliver collective outcomes: transcend humanitarian-development divides

Too often, each sector brings different goals, time frames, disjointed data and analysis, and resources to those

same communities, creating and implementing activities towards different objectives. The resulting divisions,

inefficiencies and even contradictions hinder optimum results for the most vulnerable

- Context matters: create joint problem statements driven by data and analysis

Context analysis is not simply an assessment of need, but rather the means to achieve a full picture of the causes

of need, the most prominent risks and available capacities and gaps in national and local systems

- Move from individual short-term projects to collective outcomes

- Draw on comparative advantage

Core responsibility five: invest in humanity

Greater investment in people, local actors and national systems must become an urgent priority

Invest in risk : Risk reduction is not only more cost-effective in saving lives, it is the only way to deal sustainably

with the growing impacts of natural hazards, climate change and other weather-related effects

the international community must shift from its disproportionate focus on crisis management and response

towards investing in crisis prevention and building up community resilience

Invest in stability

And Sweden’s national commitments: http://www.government.se/information-material/2016/05/swedens-national-

commitments-at-the-world-humanitarian-summit/

Stockholm declaration – April 2016

Can be found here: http://www.government.se/contentassets/8c2491b60d494dd8a2c1046b9336ee52/stockholm-

declaration-on-addressing-fragility-and-building-peace-in-a-changing-world.pdf

The Stockholm Declaration1 intends to “provide smarter, more effective, and more targeted development support in fragile

and conflict affected situations, not least in protracted humanitarian crises” and to “work more closely with development

and humanitarian actors and promote increased incorporation of conflict-sensitive and longer-term development

approaches and financing into humanitarian operations in protracted crisis situations to achieve collective outcomes”

Several points are particularly relevant to bringing greater coherence between humanitarian and development:

1. Investing in capacity building of local organisations and actors, in particular facilitating their involvement in

the planning and implementation of humanitarian programmes

2. Actively sharing data between humanitarian and development organisations– including knowledge about

refugees, internally displaced people and host communities, and the obstacles to return – to inform shared

risk and context analyses, using these analyses to develop risk-informed programming, and to monitor the

achievement of collective and sustainable outcomes

3. Providing the right financial incentives – including more multi-annual funding allocations – for different

actors to work more coherently over multiple years; ensuring that each actor’s individual efforts work

towards common, context-specific, goals and collective SDG outcomes: overcoming the factors that have led

these states and societies to be exposed to fragility and shocks

http://www.government.se/information-material/2016/05/swedens-national-commitments-at-the-world-humanitarian-summit/

http://www.government.se/information-material/2016/05/swedens-national-commitments-at-the-world-humanitarian-summit/

http://www.government.se/contentassets/8c2491b60d494dd8a2c1046b9336ee52/stockholm-declaration-on-addressing-fragility-and-building-peace-in-a-changing-world.pdf

http://www.government.se/contentassets/8c2491b60d494dd8a2c1046b9336ee52/stockholm-declaration-on-addressing-fragility-and-building-peace-in-a-changing-world.pdf

67 | P a g e

4. Stepping up financial and political investments in the reduction of fragile situations and in the prevention

and peaceful resolution of conflicts, including through arms control

5. Securing the participation and involvement of crisis affected people and communities in the planning and

implementation of humanitarian and development initiatives, and heeding their voices. Ensuring the voices

of grass roots organisations, including women’s groups, are heard at national level, and strengthening the

listening skills of field personnel

68 | P a g e

Annex IV – OECD resilience systems analysis guidelines

Overview of resilience systems analysis guidance for strategy development

Why should we do a resilience systems analysis? We now know a great deal about different risks in developing countries. There are numerous risk

analysis tools, showing us where and when conflict is likely, which areas are exposed to natural

hazards and the risk of disasters, modelling how economic shocks and pandemics might spread, or

how climate change will affect different communities and regions.

However, we don’t yet share a vision of what to do about those risks; how to strengthen the

resilience of individuals, households, communities and states to the risks that they face. Where

should we invest time, skills and funds to empower at-risk people, helping them to better absorb

shocks, or adapt so that they become less exposed to shocks, or transform so that shocks no longer

occur?

A resilience systems analysis will provide:

a shared view of the risk landscape that people face

an understanding of the broader system that people need for their all-round well-being

an analysis of how the risk landscape affects the key components of the well-being system, which components are resilient, which are not, and why

a shared understanding of power dynamics, and how the use or misuse of power helps or hinders people’s access to the assets they need to cope with shocks; and

The idea that people, institutions and states need the right tools, assets and skills to deal with an

increasingly complex, interconnected and evolving risk landscape, while retaining the ability to seize

opportunities to increase overall well-being, is widely accepted. In reality, however, it has not been easy to

translate this concept into good practice, mostly because people don’t have the right tools to

systematically analyse resilience, and then integrate resilience aspects into their development and

humanitarian strategies and programming.

In this document you will find a step-by-step approach to resilience systems analysis to help those

responsible for programme strategy development to integrate resilience within their development and

humanitarian strategies and achieve concrete impacts for vulnerable people and communities.

The guidance sets out five modules, with a simple step-by step approach to integrate resilience into

programme strategy development. The guidance provides a brief overview of the key concepts and the

added-value of strategy development using a ‘resilience lens’, followed by brief instructions for undertaking

the analysis itself. This methodology should be led by an analyst, who will also be responsible for elements

of ‘pre-analysis’ to facilitate multi-disciplinary inputs from across the agency or organisation. In total, the

analysis is likely to take the strategy development team around 2-4 days to complete, with the analyst

spending a further 1-2 days on preparatory pre-analysis.

This resilience systems analysis guidance for strategy development can be used in combination with

accompanying OECD guidance to ensure that strategy is effectively translated, or ‘operationalised’ into

programming. This follow-up step complements the guidelines for strategy development and includes the

tools to develop a multi-agency resilience roadmap to build resilience at all layers of society. Further

guidance on this step can be found here:

http://www.oecd.org/dac/Resilience%20Systems%20Analysis%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/dac/Resilience%20Systems%20Analysis%20FINAL.pdf

69 | P a g e

based on all of that, a shared vision of what needs to be done to strengthen resilience in the system, and how to integrate these aspects into policies, strategies and development efforts at every layer of society.

What is the added value of resilience systems analysis, compared with risk

management? Resilience systems analysis builds on, rather than replaces, traditional risk management approaches,

by:

adding elements that address the complexity and inter-linkages of different risks. It takes into account, for example, how disasters can also trigger economic shocks, and how conflicts can also leave people more exposed to disaster

taking account of uncertainty and change, by exploring how long-term trends such as climate change, governance and insecurity, economic marginalisation and volatility, environmental degradation, and demographic changes can change the nature and impact of shocks

focusing on the system, not the risk, aiming to strengthen the systems that people use to support their all-round well-being, no matter what risks they face, building on existing capacities

understanding the importance of power relations in helping or hindering resilience

taking into account both large scale and small scale shocks, given that frequent, low impact events, like illness, can also have a devastating impact on people’s lives.

Who should be involved? The resilience systems analysis can be used to inform both internal strategic planning processes, as

well as multi-agency programme implementation plans that identify a resilience roadmap for

multiple actors and stakeholders. Both processes should include diverse stakeholders with expertise

in risk, contextual expertise, and decision makers. To inform strategic planning, this expertise should

be drawn from across departments and divisions.

The resilience systems analysis for strategic planning has been designed to be as light, fast and easy

as possible, involving two to four days for the strategy development team, with a further one to two

days pre-analysis. The process should be led by an analyst responsible for ensuring the quality of

strategic planning and programme management who is also responsible for the pre-analysis phase

of the process. The strategy development team should include the following internal stakeholders:

programme cycle analysts and contact points

development and humanitarian staff responsible for strategic planning relevant to the particular country context(s)

programme implementation and management contact points

policy/thematic leads

70 | P a g e

Why a ‘systems’ approach? Resilience systems analysis uses a systems approach. This is because the impact of a future shock –

the risk – is dependent on how society’s systems are set up to respond to shocks and change.

A system could be many things, including a unit of society (for example an individual or household, a

community, or a state), of the natural environment (for example a forest) or a physical entity (for

example an urban infrastructure network).

The analytical framework used in this tool is taken from the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach.

Within this approach, the well-being of a community depends on a system with six different

categories of assets or “capitals” – financial, human, natural, physical, political, and social capital.

The assets that make up each of these categories of capital will differ from context to context. The

example below shows an example of some of the assets that could make up the different categories

of capital.

Examples of key livelihoods assets

Three different capacities for resilience Resilience is the ability of households, communities and nations to absorb and recover from shocks,

whilst positively adapting and transforming their structures and means for living in the face of long-

term stresses, change and uncertainty (Mitchell, 2013).

Resilience can be strengthened by supporting three different types of capacities:

Absorptive capacity: The ability of a system to prepare for, mitigate or prevent negative impacts, using predetermined coping responses in order to preserve and restore essential basic structures and functions. This includes coping mechanisms used during periods of shock. Examples of absorptive capacity include early harvest, taking children out of school, and delaying debt repayments.

Adaptive capacity: The ability of a system to adjust, modify or change its characteristics and actions to moderate potential future damage and to take advantage of opportunities, so that it can continue to function without major qualitative changes in function or structural

71 | P a g e

identity. Examples of adaptive capacity include diversification of livelihoods, involvement of the private sector in delivering basic services, and introducing drought resistant seed.

Transformative capacity: The ability to create a fundamentally new system so that the shock will no longer have any impact. This can be necessary when ecological, economic or social structures make the existing system untenable. Examples of transformative capacity include the introduction of conflict resolution mechanisms, urban planning measures, and actions to stamp out corruption.

The relationship between absorptive, adaptive and transformative capacities for strengthening resilience

Source: Béné et al,2012

Often, these three capacities are used at the same time. For example, a coastal community in

Bangladesh may use its absorptive capacity to build barriers that will protect their resources against

annual flooding; use adaptive skills to alter how they cultivate crops and collect drinking water in

new ways that guard against the increasing salinity of groundwater associated with climate change,

and transform the way they manage natural resources by changing basic attitudes about the role

and partnership of different community groups, and the role of women.

Resilience systems analysis – a five step modular approach The resilience systems analysis tool has been designed to be as light, fast and easy as possible, using

a simple five-step modular approach. It builds on, rather than replaces, traditional risk management

approaches. There are five main steps to a resilience system analysis:

Determining assets per capital and understanding how they react to risks

Identification of key risks

Identifying existing support to strengthen resilience, gaps and strategic priorities

Analysis of stakeholders and power influencing access to assets

Finalising a ‘systems’ approach –strategic and programmatic priorities per ‘layer’

RISKS

GAPS

CAPITALS

POWER

RESILIENCE

SYSTEM

72 | P a g e

Module 1/step 1: Identifying key risks The analyst responsible for leading the process will need to review relevant literature and reports on

the context, triangulating, where possible, with quality primary and secondary data. It helps if the

analyst has a good understanding of the context, as this will help them validate the information

being processed. Using an analytical approach similar to a problem tree analysis, the analyst will

need to develop a one-page overview of the relationships between primary and secondary risks, and

related stresses, in this specific context.

These risks and stresses can be grouped and colour coded according to the six different “capital

groups” outlined in the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework – financial, human, natural, physical,

political, and social capital. This graphical representation will help the strategy team to understand

how different stresses make the system more exposed to certain risks, and how one risk may then

lead to another. Understanding weaknesses and risks in the context, and how they affect each other,

will help the strategy development team to identify and prioritise the most critical weaknesses of

the system. An example of this analysis, adapted from the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks

Report, is shown below:

Interconnections map indicating the relationship between risks and stresses in the system

Module 1/step 2: Evaluating the probability and impact of the main risks On the basis of the previous analysis, the strategy team should identify the main risks to determine

the likelihood and impact of them occurring. This will facilitate the development of risk profiles,

taking into consideration the following factors:

type of risk (natural, political, economic, social, physical, natural)

description of the risk (summary of what is known about the characteristics of this risk)

probability of the risk occurring, based on past shocks and scenarios, as well as the related stresses, long term trends and aggravating factors

73 | P a g e

possible impacts (description of possible impact on different system components derived from past impacts and scenario exercises)

To evaluate the probability that each of the main risks will occur, the analyst and the team can refer,

for example, to existing contingency plans, national risk assessments, expert analyses and/or

statistics from insurance companies. The data will often be incomplete, especially as far as political

risks are concerned. In these cases, the analyst and the team will need to subjectively assess the

probability, based on relevant research and their understanding of the context.

The probability and impact of a risk should be ascribed a simple scale, even if this means that the

scale may be slightly arbitrary, as per the following tables:

Example scales for probability of occurrence

Scale Likelihood of

occurrence

Probability of occurrence per year

4 Frequent or very likely >33%

3 Moderate or likely 10%-33%

2 Occasional 3%-10%

1 Unlikely 1%-3%

0 Not applicable

Scale Meaning Probability in %

4 Very likely Almost sure that this risk will create a shock within a year

3 Likely Between 10% and 100% probability in one year

2 Possible Between 1% and 10% probability in one year

1 Unlikely Less than 1% probability in one year

0 Not applicable

Example of a scale to assess impact

Scale of Impact

0 Not applicable The shock does not affect this system component

1 Negligible The shock only minimally affects this system component

2 Limited The shock affects this system component in a limited and temporary manner

74 | P a g e

3 Substantial The shock substantially affects this system component into the medium to long

term

4 Critical The shock profoundly and permanently affects this system component

Module 1/step 3: Determining the overall severity of different risks Severity is calculated by multiplying the probability of the occurrence of a risk, with the overall

impact of the risk on the system. This information then lets the team create a risk ‘heatmap’,

plotting the probability of a risk occurring on one axis, and the impact of the risk on the system, on

the other axis, as per the following graph:

Example of a risk ‘heatmap’

Module 2/step 1: Identifying the key components of the system

The aim of this step is to determine the key components of the system that the resilience systems

analysis is looking at. To demonstrate this we use the sustainable livelihoods approach, which

analyses the system in terms of impacts on different types of “capital”.

The team should list the assets that make up each of these six types of capital in the current context.

Classification is not an exact science, as some assets can be classified in different ways. For example,

a cow can be considered as natural capital (for its milk), as physical capital (to plow the fields) or as

social capital (for dowry).

The following table provides examples of assets for each group of capital. This could serve as a

starting point; the team will then add or remove the assets depending on the context.

75 | P a g e

Capital Asset

Financial Additional production for sale

Banking facilities

Credit/ savings group

Formal employment

Gifts / Donations

Income to cover basic needs

Informal employment

Savings

Transfer of funds

Human Competencies, knowledge, habits

Education

Health

Vocational skills

Natural Biodiversity of the environment

Forest

Land for agriculture / livestock

Livestock

Minerals

Rivers and waterholes

Source of drinking water

Physical Commodities

Drinking Water

Energy

Essential Household items

Means of Transportation, Livestock

Productive Land/Productive capital

76 | P a g e

Sanitation

Shelter

Social Infrastructure

Political Access to those in authority

Knowledge of rights and duties

Membership in political parties

Participation in community meetings

Participation in community organizations influencing local power structures

Participation in democratic processes (elections, decentralization)

Social Community committees

Formal/informal conflict management mechanisms

Informal social interaction

Measures to protect girls and boys

Membership in formal community groups

Mutual support

Participation of women in community life

Module 2/step 2: Analysing how each identified risk impacts upon assets in

the system Here the team determines how each of the risks identified in Module 1 will impact on each of the

system components identified in the first step of Module 2. In this way, we get an overall picture of:

how individual risks will likely affect different parts of the system; and

where the system is most exposed to risks, and where it is not

The analyst can facilitate this process by pre-preparing matrices that map the capital assets

identified in Module 2, to the risks per capital, identified in Module 1. This will serve the basis for a

strategy team discussion to determine the extent to which each capital asset reacts well or poorly in

the face of the identified risks.

The team discussion can be guided by a consideration of the following general principles of

resilience:

preparedness – the knowledge and capacities to effectively anticipate, respond to, and recover from, the impacts of likely, imminent or current hazard events or conditions

77 | P a g e

responsiveness – reacting quickly and positively in the event and aftermath of a crisis

connectivity – the degree of connection or separation between people, places, and things. The nature and strength of the interactions between system components

learning and innovation – the acquisition of knowledge or skills leading to a change in collective awareness, resulting in new norms, ideologies and institutions

self-organisation – the capacity to form formal or informal networks, institutions, organisations or other social collectives independently from the state or other central authority

diversity and redundancy – having many different forms, types or ideas and excess capacity and back-up systems which enable the maintenance of core functionality in the event of disturbances

inclusion – representation of diverse stakeholders in in decision-making processes

social cohesion – shared values and communities of interpretation, reducing disparities in wealth and income, and generally enabling people to have a sense that they are engaged in a common enterprise

thresholds - acceptable levels of well-being, clearly defined access to rights and sustainable limits to common resources

This discussion can be further supported by consideration of the following guiding questions:

Resilience

principles

Possible guiding questions

Preparedness Does the system have access to relevant, accurate and timely information on

risk?

What are the perceptions of risk of stakeholders?

Are risk assessments and contingency/preparedness plans carried out? Are

simulation exercises done?

Are early warning, alert and response systems and resources in place, do they

cover the major risks? Are they linked to lower and higher society layers?

Responsiveness Have different types of shocks been adequately managed in the past? What role

did local people and organisations play compared to national and international

actors?

Do local people and stakeholders have their own emergency plans and resources,

beyond those of the state?

What mechanisms are in place to assure decision-making around crises is

understood and accountable when there are shortfalls in action?

Connectivity Do programming measures address the cause and effect of stresses and shocks of

the risk landscape?

Are measures linked between different layers of society and do they responsibly

deal with trade- offs?

Is policy and programming on risk and resilience coherent between major sectors

and are stakeholders’ actions linked?

78 | P a g e

Resilience

principles


Learning and

innovation

How is local knowledge on managing risk and building resilience collected, shared

and used?

What are the formal and informal means that people and groups use for learning,

and applying knowledge?

How is scientific information on shocks and trends, and external experience on

risk management and building resilience used by local stakeholders?

How do stakeholders experiment with livelihoods, are they formally supported to

do this?

How do stakeholders use science and technology?

Self-

organisation

What has been the capacity of local actors to manage shocks in the past, before

or outside of actions from government or other formal structures?

What is the extent of freedom or obstacles for local organisations to exist and

function?

How do formal and informal structures for coordination and decision-making

exist and relate to each other? Does this change within, and between, different

layers of society?

Are the main drivers for change and feedback loops of systems understood, are

they positively managed by formal and informal stakeholders?

Diversity and

redundancy

Are there multiple formal bodies and mechanisms, coordinated behind a

common risk management and resilience-building structure and processes?

Do people or groups have access to different forms of functional or social

relationships?

Are there back-up systems for critical infrastructure and public services; is there

access to multiple sources for basic living means (e.g. WASH, food, shelter,

health, energy, and protection/safety)?

Are there measures in place for managing all major risks; are these

complementary and coordinated with each other?

Inclusion Were different groups represented and able to participate in elections at

different layers in society?

How have different stakeholders (particularly vulnerable or minority groups)

participated in planning and major decision-making processes?

How do women participate in power and decision-making structures/bodies?

How does formal and informal action on risk and resilience integrate the

participation and understanding of the vulnerability and capacities of different

groups?

79 | P a g e

Resilience

principles


Social cohesion How equitable are policies, strategies and actions that govern different groups

and the access of people to their means of living (e.g. allocation of public

resources and services)? Are rules and regulations just, are they enforced?

Are there common value systems and tolerance of differing beliefs and attitudes

amongst groups and people?

How is conflict managed between people groups and people?

Are there common and positive visions of the future with the active participation

towards these across different stakeholders?

Thresholds Are common resources clearly defined and understood in terms of their

sustainable functioning?

Are there rules and regulations based on this understanding, and are these

enforced, that maintain a balance between user access and replenishment of the

resource?

Are basic standards for well-being, dignity and choice applied and respected in

the actions by all stakeholders? Do all stakeholders understand these, and their

rights to these?

This discussion should be captured in a series of matrices, one for each capital group. The limited

following example maps relevant risks against just two financial capital assets, however, each matrix

should include all identified assets and relevant risks.

FINANCIAL

CAPITAL Risks most affecting this asset

Why this asset reacts well

to risks

Why this asset reacts

poorly to risks

Remittances Dysfunctional banking system/access issues

Closed borders

Increased solidarity/ sense of urgency

High transaction costs

Economic crisis inside and outside Syria

Markets Escalated conflict

Increased poverty/decreased purchasing power

Access to neighbouring countries

Adaption of local markets

Increased prices

Access to markets and goods closely related to power structures /conflict lines

Module 2/optional step 3: Graphing the resilience of capital assets to show

trends over time Participants may find it useful to represent this analysis graphically to indicate the relative resilience

of different capital groups. This is an optional step but could be useful, especially if participants

intend to repeat the analysis to better understand the relative trend of resilience per capital over

time, or the relative resilience of each capital group in relation to other capital groups.

80 | P a g e

This will involve ascribing scores for each of the capital assets, using a scale of 1-4, as below:

Score Meaning

0 No impact on this system component

1 Minimal impact

2 Significant impact, effects are limited and temporary

3 Significant impact, effects will be felt into the medium or long-term, and/or

irreversible

4 Major impact, the system component has been profoundly and permanently

affected

Building on the matrix from step 2, these scores can be included in the capital matrices and used to

calculate an average score for each of the capital groups, based on the relative strength and

weakness of capital assets in the face of identified risks:

FINANCIAL

CAPITAL

Risks most affecting this

asset


well to risks


poorly to risks

Score

based on

scale


Closed borders




2





Increased prices


3

AVERAGE SCORE FOR FINANCIAL CAPITAL 2.5

Finally, these scores can be graphed to indicate comparative resilience per capital group:

Example of a spider graph showing the relative resilience of capital groups

0

1

2

3

4Human

Social

Political

Natural

Physical

Financial

81 | P a g e

Module 3/step 1: Reviewing existing initiatives Up until this point, the analysis has focused on building a common understanding of identified risks,

the assets within the society, or system and how these assets react in the face of these risks. This

next module starts to identify what to do about the relative strength of weakness of these assets, or

how to build resilience.

The first step of this process involves gaining a better understanding of the range of initiatives

already focused on addressing the relative strength or weakness of assets in the system. This should

include the agency’s own programmes and projects, as well as those of others – including

government, national civil society, UN agencies, bilateral donors, the private sector and other

international agencies. The strategy team should also try to ensure that they identify and consider

initiatives at all layers of the system –household, community, sub-national, national and

regional/global.

This analysis involves brainstorming amongst the strategy team and should also draw on the

analyst’s research from Module 1, step 1, as well as the multi-disciplinary expertise within the team.

The strategy team should capture as much information on existing initiatives as possible and

complete the next column of the capital matrices, as in the limited example below:

FINANCIAL

CAPITAL

Risks most affecting this

asset

Why this asset

reacts well to risks

Why this asset

reacts poorly to risks Existing programmes


Closed borders




Mobile-based cash transfer initiative

Financial sector reform programme to incentivise micro-credits





Increased prices


Women’s economic

empowerment

programme

Private sector

development

Market-based

livelihoods

programming

Module 3/step 2: Identifying gaps

By identifying existing programming, the team should start to better understand where there might

be gaps, either to further strengthen an asset that is already demonstrating resilience, or to address

the weakness of an asset, where it has been shown to react poorly to risk. In the example for

remittances, below, the programmes identified primarily focus on addressing transaction costs by

increasing access and addressing dysfunction within the banking system. The team might identify

additional initiatives to address the potential gap in programming, focused on the global and

regional economic impacts on remittances. In the example for strengthening markets, the existing

82 | P a g e

initiatives address people’s purchasing power through market-based livelihoods programmes and

women’s economic empowerment initiatives, but don’t address, for instance, increased prices. The

team may then identify initiatives such as market subsidies, increasing market demand, or

promoting market competition to help address increased prices. A short example follows:

FINANCIAL

CAPITAL

Risks most affecting

this asset

Why this asset

reacts well to

risks

Why this asset

reacts poorly to

risks

Existing

programmes Identified gaps


Closed borders




Mobile-based cash transfer initiative


Advocacy for the reduction of tax rates for small-scale international transfers

Strengthening of diaspora networks and pooling of remittance funds





Increased prices


Women’s

economic

empowerment

programme

Market-based livelihoods programming

Market systems to deliver aid (e-card);

Small to medium sized enterprise development

Module 3/step 3: Agreeing strategic priorities on the basis of comparative

advantage The final step in this element of the analysis involves the strategy team identifying gaps that their

own agency could address as well as relevant aspects of their existing and on-going strategy and

programming. This should be based on the teams’ own understanding of their agencies’ comparative

advantage, previous and on-going programming experience and the overarching results that they

are aiming to achieve. It might include all, or a selection of the gaps identified in the previous step

and all or some of the existing programming portfolio. These priorities can also be grouped into

areas determined by the agency’s own strategic results areas, as below:

FINANCIAL

CAPITAL

Risks most

affecting this

asset

Why this

asset

reacts well

to risks

Why this

asset

reacts

poorly to

risks

Existing


Strategic

priorities

Remittance

s Dysfunctional

banking system/access

Increased solidarity


Mobile-based cash transfer

Advocacy for the reduction of tax rates for

Livelihoods

Strengthening of diaspora

83 | P a g e

FINANCIAL

CAPITAL

Risks most

affecting this

asset

Why this

asset

reacts well

to risks

Why this

asset

reacts

poorly to

risks

Existing


Strategic

priorities

issues

Closed borders

/ sense of urgency


initiative


small-scale international transfers

Strengthening of diaspora networks and pooling of remittance funds

networks and pooling of remittance funds





Increased prices


Women’s

economic

empowerme

nt

programme

Private

sector

developmen

t

Market-based livelihoods programming

Market systems to deliver aid (e-card);


Livelihoods

Market systems to deliver aid (e-card)


Module 4: Undertaking a ‘power analysis’ to understand people’s ability to

access assets Module four aims to build a common understanding amongst the strategy team as to which

stakeholders have influence in the system and might play a role in either facilitating the

strengthening of assets, or limiting efforts to strengthen assets in the face of identified risks. This is

an important step for the strategy team, to help determine potential partnerships to deliver on the

identified and agreed strategy.

The strategy team should identify all actors influencing the system, ensuring that they think of actors

at all layers of the system. This should include, but not necessarily be limited to, community

stakeholders, government and public stakeholders, private sector, civil society, international

organisations and informal actors. These stakeholders can be plotted on an axis on the basis of the

scale of their influence and whether this has a positive or negative impact, as per the example

below:

84 | P a g e

Example of a ‘power analysis’ matrix

Module 5/step 1: Building a shared understanding of strategic priorities

per ‘layer’ Module five draws on the preceding analysis to build a common understanding of how the identified

strategic priorities can be integrated into a systems approach that strengthens assets at different

layers of a society, or system, and the inter-connections between these layers. The next step also

helps the team to better understand the way in which identified priorities can be used to strengthen

the absorptive, adaptive or transformative capacities within the system.

These steps primarily involve collating the work of the strategy team and can be undertaken by the

analyst and shared with the strategy team following the group-work of the analysis. The first step

involves collating all of the strategic priorities identified in Module three and re-grouping them into

the agency’s relevant priority results areas. Following this, the analyst groups these strategic

priorities according to the layer of the system where the intervention or engagement is focused

(rather than at the layer where there are expected outcomes or impacts). An example of this step

can be seen in the following table:

85 | P a g e

Strategic priorities per result area

Result area 1: Local governance strengthening, livelihoods and improved human security

Layer of

society Governance Livelihoods Human security

Regional

Reduce transaction costs

and barriers to remittances

to ensure resources can be

transferred to meet needs

for provision and access to

basic services

Strengthen the linkages

between national, regional

and international SGBV

strategies and initiatives


between national, regional

and international strategies

and initiatives around

combatting child recruitment

and protection of children in

armed conflict

National

When possible, engage in

dialogue on relevant sector-

specific policy frameworks

Increase understanding of

and, potential engagement

with, the rapidly expanding

informal economy to

address exploitation

Sub-

national

Strengthen organisational

capacity of local formal and

informal governance

structures for the delivery

of basic services

Explore innovate solutions

to legal and financial

transactions, IT solutions,

micro-credit, women’s

economic empowerment,

and support for business

associations

Strengthen trauma, PPS and

mental health services as a

potential trigger for

increased rates of SGBV

Communit

y

Strengthen organisational

capacity of local formal and

informal governance

structures for the delivery

of basic services

Supporting community

based entrepreneurship to

expand formal employment

opportunities

Research into the impact of

land access on rates of SGBV

Household

Initiate vocational income

diversification programmes

to help households meet

costs of accessing basic

services (including health

and education)

Prioritise shelter needs

which can disrupt family

dynamics and increase the

risk of SGBV

Module 5/step 2: Mapping absorptive, adaptive and transformative

capacities for resilience As with step 1, the following step can be completed by the analyst on the basis of the strategy

team’s previous work. As per the previous step, this part of the analysis helps build a common

understanding amongst participants as to the focus of their strategy on strengthening absorptive,

86 | P a g e

adaptive or transformative capacities. This involves collating the analysis in the previous table and

regrouping the data accordingly, as per the following example:

Strategic priorities per adaptive capacity

Layer of

society Absorptive Adaptive Transformative

Regional

Reduce transaction

costs and barriers to

remittances to ensure

people have the

required resources to

access basic services

When possible, engage in

dialogue on relevant

sector-specific policy

frameworks (regionally

and national)


between national,

regional and international

SGBV strategies and

initiatives

National

Address the emerging

skills deficit for public

administration and

justice systems

Increase understanding of

and, potential

engagement with, the

rapidly expanding

informal economy to

address exploitation

Strengthen the role of civil

society as a platform for

dialogue on protection

and access to basic

services

District/

sub-

national

Strengthen

organisational capacity

of local formal and

informal governance

structures for the

delivery of basic

services. Engage local

authorities in livelihood

strengthening activities

Explore innovate solutions

to legal and financial

transactions, IT solutions,

micro-credit, women’s

economic empowerment,

and support for business

associations

Promote inclusive inter-

communal education

models and opportunities

Community

Initiate community

level awareness

campaigns on relevant

topics related to

protection and access

to services (including

back to school

campaigns and public

health messaging)

Supporting community

based entrepreneurship to

expand formal

employment

opportunities

Support innovation

including: IT based market

information; mobile

slaughter facilities for

livestock as a key

livelihood asset, etc.

Household

Initiate vocational

income diversification

programmes to help

households meet costs

related to access to

services, including

Ensure that women have

the skills to capitalise on

changing gender roles as a

result of high male

migration rates within and

outside of Syria

87 | P a g e

Strategic priorities per adaptive capacity

Layer of

society Absorptive Adaptive Transformative

education

Concluding the analysis At the completion of the five modules, the strategy team will need to translate the analysis into

agency-specific formats. This can easily be done by drawing on the final two tables outlined in

Module 5. It may also be worth reaching agreement within the strategy team as to whether the

analysis will be followed by a multi-stakeholder analysis to engage other actors in dialogue and also

to further highlight the interconnections and dependencies between agencies’ efforts to strengthen

resilience at different layers of the society or system.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barrett and Costas (2013) Resilience to avoid and escape chronic poverty: Theoretical Foundations

and Measurement Principles, Paper presented at IFPRI, August 2013

Béné et al. (2012): Resilience: New Utopia or New Tyranny? Reflection about the Potentials and

Limits of the Concept of Resilience in Relation to Vulnerability-Reduction Programmes, Institute for

Development Studies Working Paper 405

British Colombia government (2004), Hazard, risk and vulnerability analysis tool kit, Provincial

Emergency Program, Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Canada.

Department for International Development (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets, DFID

Global Network of Civil Society for Disaster Reduction (2013) Views from the frontline 2013: beyond

2015, available at www.globalnetwork-dr.org/views-from-the-frontline/vfl-2013.html

GTZ (2004) Risk Analysis – a Basis for Disaster Risk Management, Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Technische Zusammenarbeit(GTZ) GmbH. Eschborn, Germany;

Mitchell (2013) Risk and Resilience: From Good Idea to Good Practice, OECD Development Assistance

Committee Working Paper 13/2013, OECD Publishing

OECD and UNICEF (2014) Final Report: Resilience Systems Analysis, eastern Democratic Republic of

Congo, available at:

www.oecd.org/dac/governance-

development/aresilienceroadmapforeasterndemocraticrepublicofthecongo.htm

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (2009) Global Assessment Report on

Disaster Risk Reduction (2009), UNISDR

Vogel (2012) Review of the use of ‘Theory of Change’ in international development, DFID

http://www.globalnetwork-dr.org/views-from-the-frontline/vfl-2013.html

http://www.oecd.org/dac/governance-development/aresilienceroadmapforeasterndemocraticrepublicofthecongo.htm

http://www.oecd.org/dac/governance-development/aresilienceroadmapforeasterndemocraticrepublicofthecongo.htm

88 | P a g e

World Bank (2013) World Development Report 2014: Risk and Opportunity—Managing Risk for

Development, Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Economic Forum (2015) Global Risk Report 2015, World Economic Forum

89 | P a g e

resilience systems analysis - oecd. · pdf fileresilience systems analysis ... terms of...

Documents